Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

October 12, 2023 R47752

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for
October 12, 2023
Congress
Anne A. Riddle
Mass timber is a class of engineered wood products made into structural pieces of much larger
Analyst in Natural
sizes and more diverse shapes than can be made with lumber alone. Mass timber is a substitute
Resources Policy
for conventional mineral building materials (e.g., steel, concrete) due to its size and physical

properties. Mass timber also sequesters carbon and may result in less greenhouse gas (GHG)
production during manufacturing than mineral materials. These characteristics have raised the

possibility that mass timber could replace conventional materials in the commercial building
sector and could generate associated co-benefits, such as reducing the sector’s carbon footprint—potentially on a large scale.
Development of mass timber products has the potential to change the role of wood in the U.S. construction industry.
Traditionally, most structures built with wood have been in the residential sector using light-frame wood construction: walls,
roofs, and other structural assemblies made of nailed dimensional lumber and engineered wood, epitomized by familiar
single-family housing construction. Buildings built with mass timber products can be larger and more complex than buildings
made using light-frame wood construction. Because mass timber can be used to build tall wood buildings—defined as
buildings that are six stories or more in height—mass timber can penetrate the commercial building sector.
Mass timber and tall wood buildings may have some disadvantages over conventional construction methods or may face
barriers to adoption. Because mass timber is an emerging technology with minimal market share, researchers identify high
costs, unfamiliarity within the construction community, and unresolved questions about performance as potential
disadvantages compared with conventional construction. In some cases, it is unclear whether these issues are intrinsic to mass
timber itself or would change if mass timber were more widely used. Recent changes to model building codes may reduce
barriers to increased construction of tall wood buildings. However, in general, mass timber and tall wood buildings comprise
a small portion of the U.S. building economy. As of March 2023, 1,753 mass timber projects had been constructed or were in
design in the United States; for context, 5.9 million commercial buildings were constructed in 2019 alone.
Mass timber’s potential to replace mineral materials has generated interest from those seeking to reduce the building sector’s
environmental impacts. Mass timber products may improve on the GHG-related characteristics of mineral materials in two
ways: mass timber sequesters carbon, and mass timber generates relatively lower GHG emissions in production compared
with mineral materials. Proponents of mass timber also have forecast a number of possible “upstream” benefits of mass
timber production and manufacturing, particularly if mass timber construction were adopted on a broad scale; these benefits
stem from mass timber’s potential to grow wood’s role in the construction industry and, in turn, potentially drive increased
demand for timber. Mass timber has therefore become part of a broader conversation about the role of timber markets in
driving the extent, composition, health, and management of forests.
The federal government funds research and provides financial and technical assistance to facilitate wood product innovation,
including development and deployment of mass timber and tall wood buildings. This is generally (but not exclusively) done
through the Forest Service’s (FS) State and Private Forestry (SPF) and Research and Development (R&D) mission areas,
although some authorities also relate to management of FS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) federal forests. Notable
programs include the Wood Innovations Grants Program in the SPF mission area and the Forest Product Laboratory in the
R&D mission area; however, numerous other programs and authorities may apply. Should Congress wish to further
incentivize mass timber research, development, and use, it may consider several options, including expanding existing
assistance and research programs within the FS; applying materials preferences to federally owned or funded building and
infrastructure projects; and offering incentives as part of applicable federal timber harvesting projects.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 29 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 25

Congressional Research Service

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Introduction
Mass timber is a class of engineered wood products made into structural pieces of much larger
sizes and more diverse shapes than can be made with lumber alone.1 Due to its size and physical
properties, mass timber is a substitute for conventional mineral building materials such as steel or
concrete. Mass timber also sequesters carbon and may result in less greenhouse gas (GHG)
production during manufacturing than mineral materials. These characteristics have raised the
possibility that mass timber could replace conventional materials in the commercial building
sector and could generate associated co-benefits, such as reducing the sector’s carbon footprint or
contributing to forest management goals—potentially on a large scale.
Recent changes to model building codes may reduce barriers to increased construction of tall
wood buildings. At present, in general, mass timber and tall wood buildings comprise a small
portion of the U.S. building economy. As of March 2023, 1,753 mass timber projects had been
constructed or were in design in the United States; for context, 5.9 million commercial buildings
were constructed in 2019 alone.
This report begins with an overview of the U.S. wood products industry and then discusses mass
timber, including potential advantages and unresolved questions regarding the material. It then
provides a summary of relevant programs administered by the Forest Service (FS) in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The report concludes with a discussion of policy options,
should Congress wish to support the use of mass timber.
Overview of Solid Wood in the U.S. Wood Products
Industry
The wood products industry is a diverse commodity industry in which various products made
from wood, such as lumber, flooring, paper, and many others, are manufactured from cut trees
(timber).2 The United States is both the largest producer and the largest single consumer of wood
in the world.3 In 2019, approximately 13.7 billion cubic feet of industrial roundwood were
harvested in the United States.4 The wood products industry primarily consists of solid wood
products and of pulp and paper products, with other uses (e.g., woody biomass energy) playing

1 When used colloquially, the term mass timber is sometimes used to include lumber-sized, beam-shaped products
known as structural composite lumber. These products are similar in size and shape to lumber made of solid wood,
although they have favorable mechanical characteristics. This means they are generally viewed as substitutes for other
kinds of wood (i.e., solid wood lumber) as opposed to substitutes for non-wood materials. Therefore, for the purposes
of this report, these products are not considered to be mass timber.
2 The wood products industry does not include trees grown to provide crops for human consumption, such as orchards
and vineyards. The wood products industry also may be referred to colloquially as the forest products industry. Some
also may refer to the timber industry, which generally refers to the industry concerned with growing and harvesting
trees but not with the later processing and manufacturing steps in the wood products supply chain.
3 Delton Alderman, United States Forest Products Annual Market Review and Prospects, 2015-2021, Forest Service
(FS), Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), October 2020.
4 James Howard and Shaobo Liang, U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics, FS, FPL-RP-
701, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Howard and Liang, U.S. Timber Production); and Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), FAOSTAT Forestry Database, Forest Product Consumption and Production, 2020. Industrial
roundwood is unprocessed logs harvested for commercial purposes as opposed to for personal or household use.
Timber may be measured in cubic feet or in board feet (BF), a unit of wood equaling 1 inch by 12 inches by 12 inches.
The BF in a log is not equal to the cubic feet in a log, as some wood is lost in the processing of a log to squared
dimensions, and BF cannot be directly converted to cubic feet.
Congressional Research Service

1

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

comparatively minor roles. Most wood products in the United States, including most lumber and
engineered wood products, derive from softwoods—coniferous trees such as pine, spruce, and fir.
Solid wood products are the largest subset of products made from wood and wood pulp. Making
solid wood products from timber may be a single- or multi-stage process, generally involving a
first step of physically transforming logs into a primary product of varying sizes of solid wood
(e.g., lumber, chips, strands, veneers), which then may enter the marketplace or undergo further
processing. Broad classes of wood products can be described as follows:
• Lumber refers to solid wood products, such as beams and planks, sawn from
logs. Lumber is either rough-sawn or finished. Finished lumber is smoothed on at
least one side and is primarily produced for the construction industry in
standardized sizes known as dimensional lumber (e.g., 2x4s, 2x2s). Rough-sawn
lumber is not smoothed and is primarily produced for other industries, where it
will undergo further processing (e.g., the furniture industry).
• Engineered wood products are products made by joining together pieces of
wood—such as chips, strands, veneers (i.e., thin sheets), or other pieces—to form
a composite product. Engineered wood products are manufactured to final
specifications (i.e., size, shape, and physical characteristics) and therefore vary
widely in their properties and uses. Examples of engineered wood products
include plywood, particle board, oriented strand board, and medium-density
fiberboard. Engineered wood products in the United States are primarily used in
construction.
• Other manufactured wood products include diverse products made from solid
pieces of wood, engineered wood, or both. Examples include poles, railroad ties,
cabinetry, furniture, and flooring.
The construction industry is the largest source of demand for wood; consequently, lumber and
engineered wood products are the largest category of wood product production. For example, in
2019, about 40% of industrial wood product production was lumber.5
Wood’s Role in the U.S. Construction Industry
The construction industry is the largest source of demand for wood in the United States, and
almost all of this demand derives from residential construction. This is because of a distinct split
in building construction styles, methods, and purposes in the United States. One class of
construction is residential construction—houses, duplexes, low-rise apartment buildings, and
similar housing-related buildings—which are usually made of wood. The other class is
commercial construction, comprising not only stores and offices but also public buildings such as
schools, libraries, and hospitals; commercial buildings are generally made of concrete, steel, and
similar mineral materials.
In the United States, building with wood in the modern era has typically been in the form of light-
frame construction: walls, roofs, and other structural assemblies made of nailed dimensional
lumber and engineered wood, epitomized by familiar single-family housing construction across
the country. Light-frame construction dominates residential construction in the United States, and
residential construction is consequently the most significant source of U.S. demand for lumber
and engineered wood products. In 2021, 92% of new U.S. residential construction was timber-

5 Consuelo Brandeis et al., Status and Trends for the U.S. Forest Products Sector: A Technical Document Supporting
the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment, FS, GTR-SRS-258, January 2021.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 8 link to page 10 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

framed.6 In 2017, about 69% of U.S. softwood lumber was used for residential construction,
including new construction and upkeep and remodeling.7 In contrast, the U.S. commercial
building sector is dominated by mineral materials. Commercial buildings in the United States are
most commonly constructed of steel (46%), followed by concrete, with a minimal amount of
wood used.8
These trends stem from a combination of engineering realities (i.e., the relatively low amount of
weight that can be carried by light-frame construction), concerns regarding the fire risk of wood
construction, cultural preferences, materials prices, and other factors.9 Some of these factors may
be formalized in building codes—laws adopted at the local or state level that describe building
construction materials and methods, maintenance standards, and other criteria (see “Tall Wood
Buildings” for more information).10 For example, building codes generally limit light-frame
structures to a few stories in height, generally because of fire safety considerations and the natural
limitations on light-frame buildings’ ability to carry weight.11
Mass Timber
What Is Mass Timber?
Mass timber, as described above, is a class of engineered wood products made from solid wood
pieces (i.e., dimensional lumber) into large structural pieces under controlled conditions. Various
kinds of mass timber can be used to create common load-bearing structural pieces used in
construction, including panels for walls, floors, ceilings, and roofs; straight and curved beams;
joists; and rafters. Types of mass timber include (but are not limited to) the following:12
• Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT): Layers of dimensional lumber stacked with the grain
running perpendicular at 90-degree angles and joined with adhesive. CLT is usually
constructed as panels, generally 2-10 feet wide and up to 60 feet in length. CLT also can
be constructed in custom sizes, with the possible dimensions and shapes scaling to
standard dimensional lumber’s sizes. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2.)
• Glue-Laminated Timber (glulam): Layered dimensional lumber where pieces are first
joined end-to-end in a single layer, then the layers are stacked with the grain running
parallel and joined with adhesive. Glulam’s grain pattern promotes strength across long
spans, such as columns or beams. Glulam is produced in beams with standard widths and
lengths of over 100 feet and can be produced as custom-sized beams or in custom shapes,
including curves. (See Figure 1 and Figure 3.)

6 Jing Fu, “The Share of Wood-Framed Homes Increased in 2021,” National Association of Home Builders, July 22,
2022.
7 Howard and Liang, U.S. Timber Production.
8 University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems, “Fact Sheet: Built Environment,” September 2022.
9 Britt Faulstick, “Why Wood Construction Is Making a Comeback,” Drexel University College of Engineering,
January 17, 2019. Hereinafter referred to as Faulstick, Wood’s Comeback.
10 For more information, see CRS Report R47665, Building Codes, Standards, and Regulations: Frequently Asked
Questions.
11 Ibid.
12 For more information on mass timber types, see APA-The Engineered Wood Association, “Products,” at
https://www.apawood.org; and ThinkWood, “Timber Products,” at https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber.
Congressional Research Service

3

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

• Nail-Laminated Timber and Dowel-Laminated Timber: These products consist of
layered dimensional lumber joined together mechanically with nails or dowels,
respectively. They are usually constructed as panels.
• Mass Plywood Panels (MPP): Layered veneers joined with adhesive. MPP pieces can be
constructed as panels or beams, with great flexibility in their size and shape and a
maximum size of 12 feet wide by 48 feet long.
Of these types of mass timber, CLT and glulam are generally the most commonly used.
Figure 1. Diagrams of Cross-Laminated Timber and Glue-Laminated Timber

Sources: Images 1 and 3: CLT Handbook, Erol Karacabeyli, Brad Douglas ed. (Co-published by FPInnovations and
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Binational Softwood Lumber
Council, 2013). Image 2: James Wacker and Matthew Smith, Standard Plans for Glue-Laminated Timber Bridge
Superstructures: Longitudinal Glulam Decks, Glulam Stringer Bridges, and Transverse Glulam Decks, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, FPL-GTR-260, Madison, WI, 2019.
Notes: Image 1 shows a common layup (configuration) for CLT. Dimensional lumber is joined into a single layer
with the grain going in the same direction, known as a lamella or lam. Then, odd numbers of lams are layered
together with the grain alternating to make the final panel. CLT’s alternating grain pattern promotes stability and
strength across every dimension in the final material. Image 2 shows several possible layups for glulam when
viewed head-on; different layups are chosen to promote different properties of strength in the final material.
Image 3 depicts a comparison of glulam and CLT, particularly showing that CLT is configured with alternating
grain and glulam is configured with each lam’s grain going the same direction. Glulam’s grain pattern promotes
strength across long spans, such as columns or beams.
As an engineered wood product, mass timber is made to meet a final specification, including the
choice of size and shape and the necessary physical properties (e.g., weight, ability to carry loads
and resist stresses, acoustic and aesthetic properties). Manufacturers achieve this in the final
product by considering the manufacturing method, the mechanical limitations of the wood and the
way it is joined together, and the piece’s size and shape. In addition, during the mass timber
manufacturing process, the manufacturer inspects and grades the smaller component parts and
identifies their defects; this allows manufacturers to distribute each component part throughout a
final piece to ameliorate flaws and maximize the product’s strength and load-bearing properties.
By specifically placing component timber, manufacturers can optimize the final piece’s strength
and control its acoustic properties, appearance, and other characteristics desirable in architectural
applications. The result of this process is a material that can equal or exceed the properties of
concrete and steel—for example, glulam has 1/6 the weight of concrete for pieces of similar
size—with otherwise comparable properties of strength and stiffness.13

13 F. Asdrubali et al., “A Review of Structural, Thermo-physical, Acoustical, and Environmental Properties of Wooden
Materials for Building Applications,” Building and Environment, vol. 114 (2017), pp. 307-332. Hereinafter referred to
as Asdrubali, “Properties of Wooden Materials.”
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 link to page 10

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Taken together, these properties mean that mass timber can be made into large, load-bearing,
structural pieces that equal or exceed the physical capabilities of—and therefore, can replace—
concrete and steel in building applications. Mass timber can be used to construct buildings that
otherwise are not, or cannot be, made of wood, such as primarily commercial buildings
commonly made of mineral materials (for examples of buildings made with mass timber, see
Figure 2 and Figure 3).14 On a broad scale, mass timber technology has generated excitement in
some academic and media circles about the possibility of substantially transforming the
commercial building sector, leading to a conversation about “timber cities.”15 Mass timber’s
potential to expand the uses of wood has similarly generated excitement about potential co-
benefits, such as “greening” the building sector, expanding wood products markets, and others.
The following sections discuss the use of mass timber for certain buildings and the possible co-
benefits.
Figure 2. Example of a Modern Mass Timber Forest Service Building

Source: Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest Facebook page, photo posted January 29, 2021, accessed by
CRS on June 14, 2023. Supporting information is from Forest Service, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest
website, “Construction Completed on New Forest Supervisor’s Office in Kamiah,” undated, accessed June 14,
2023; and Forest Service, Wood Innovations Success Stories, “Mass Timber Is Showcased in New Forest
Supervisor’s Office,” FS-1161(j), July 2021.
Notes: This image shows an interior construction photo of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest
supervisor’s office in Kamiah, ID, a Forest Service mass timber building. The building is constructed of cross-
laminated timber (CLT), glue-laminated timber (glulam), and other wood products and mineral materials. The
building’s features include a structural CLT roof system, a CLT elevator shaft, and exposed glulam beams and
columns throughout the structure. The photo shows visible CLT panels in the roof structure and glulam columns
and beams supporting the roof. Although it is not specified in Forest Service supporting materials, the other

14 Ibid.
15 For example, see Arthur Neslen, “Timber Cities ‘Could Cut 100bn Tons of CO2 Emissions by 2100,’” Guardian,
August 30, 2022; and Harry Cockburn, “‘Timber Cities’ Could Save a Billion Tonnes of Emissions by 2100,”
Independent, August 30, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

wood products in the image (for example, framing the room on the right side) likely are other engineered wood
products, such as oriented strand board or plywood.
Figure 3. Example of a Historical Forest Service Mass Timber Building

Source: Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory Flickr page, uploaded December 18, 2013. Supporting
information is from James Spartz, “Historic Glued-Laminated Arches Evaluated for Structural Quality,” Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory Lab Notes, January 13, 2013; Douglas Rammer and Jorge de Melo Moura,
Structural Evaluation of the Second-Oldest Glued-Laminated Structure in the United States, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory, General Technical Report, FPL-GTR-226, 2013, pp. 269-276; Eben Lehman, “October 15,
1934: Glued Laminated Timber Comes to America,” Forest History Society, October 15, 2018; and James
Spartz, “Soy Proteins as Wood Adhesives,” Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory Lab Notes, May 6, 2014.
Notes: This image shows the Forest Service’s Forest Product Laboratory’s “Building Two,” which was
constructed in 1934 of glue-laminated timber (glulam) arches and plywood panels to demonstrate the
performance of wooden arch buildings. At the time of its construction, Building Two was the second glulam
building in the United States. The building stood until 2010, when it was decommissioned. Its performance was
tested at various points in its life, including testing of the glulam arches after decommissioning. The building’s
construction exemplifies glulam’s common use as beams, columns, and similar structural pieces and glulam’s
potential for curved, cantilevered, and other creative shapes. The glue for the glulam arches was based on casein
proteins from cow’s milk.
Tall Wood Buildings
Development of mass timber products, particularly CLT, has allowed for buildings of increasing
size and complexity to be built with mass timber, expanding the use of wood in building beyond
light-frame construction.16 Mass timber has the potential to penetrate the commercial building
sector because it can be used for buildings—such as many commercial buildings—that are taller
and bigger than light-frame construction would allow (see Figure 4). These tall wood or tall mass
timber buildings, which are six stories or more in height and primarily made of mass timber, are

16 I. Kuzmanovska et al., “Tall Timber Buildings: Emerging Trends and Typologies,” conference paper presented at the
2018 World Conference on Timber Engineering, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

6

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

becoming allowable forms of construction in most of the United States. Recent changes to model
building codes may reduce barriers to increased construction of tall wood buildings.
Figure 4. Example of a Tall Wood Building

Source: Forest Service, “World’s Tallest Timber Building Opens,” July 29, 2022, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/
inside-fs/delivering-mission/apply/worlds-tallest-timber-building-opens. Additional information: ThinkWood,
“Ascent,” accessed June 15, 2023, at https://www.thinkwood.com/construction-projects/ascent; TimberLab,
“Ascent,” accessed June 15, 2023, at https://timberlab.com/projects/ascent.
Notes: The image shows the construction of Ascent MKE, the tallest wood building in the world at 25 stories. It
is located in Milwaukee, WI, and was constructed in 2022. Ascent MKE is a hybrid mass timber and concrete
building, consisting of 19 mass timber stories on a concrete podium. The mass timber stories are constructed of
CLT panels and glulam beams and columns, with 50% of the mass timber exposed in the final design. CLT floor
panels and glulam framing columns are visible in the image above. To demonstrate that a building with this
amount of exposed wood could comply with applicable fire safety regulations, the Forest Service’s Forest
Products Laboratory conducted the world’s first three-hour fire test on the building’s glue-laminated (glulam)
timber beams, which the beams met or exceeded. The Forest Service also provided support for Ascent through
a Wood Innovations grant for engineering and design.
Historically, most building codes in the United States have primarily allowed wood construction
in the form of light-frame construction of a few stories in height. Some building codes also
include so-called heavy timber or post-and-beam buildings, a style of construction using large,
Congressional Research Service

7

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

solid timbers that is used relatively little today and that building codes limit in size.17 These limits
are based on a combination of engineering realities regarding wood as a material and historical
concerns about fire risk in wood buildings, particularly in urban environments. These building
codes have limited the markets and carbon sequestration potential of wood as a building
material.18
Building codes are codified at state or local levels but may be based on model codes produced by
nongovernmental standard-developing organizations. In particular, the International Code Council
(ICC) is the foremost body that develops model building codes for new construction in the United
States, referred to as the International Building Code (IBC). In some jurisdictions, building codes
refer to the IBC in its entirety. Other building codes may refer to the IBC with modifications, use
other models, or be entirely locally developed. Prior to 2019, the IBC did not include tall mass
timber construction. At the time, some such projects had been initiated or completed in the United
States, but most of those projects were within the size limits of the applicable building code; the
remainder used processes described in local law to gain approval.19 In January 2019, the ICC
approved a set of proposals to allow tall wood buildings as part of the 2021 IBC.20 The 2021 IBC
included three new construction types allowing the use of mass timber in buildings of between 9
and 18 stories, depending on various factors, including fire risk.
A major factor that has limited the use of tall wood buildings is negative perceptions surrounding
the fire safety of wood. These fire concerns largely stem from a conflation of light-frame
construction and mass timber construction. In light-frame construction, the building’s structure is
made of small wood pieces with gaps or air voids between them; this configuration can ignite
quickly and allows fire to spread rapidly. By contrast, mass timber construction is made of large,
solid wood pieces with minimal voids or gaps between them. These pieces tend to char rather
than ignite, creating a protective outer layer that resists ignition. Significant bodies of research
have established the behavior of mass timber pieces in fires, including the use of different
protective designs, such as encapsulating mass timber in fire-resistant materials or designing mass
timber pieces to be structurally sound even after charring (i.e., with a sacrifice layer).21
Researchers have fire-tested mass timber assemblies (i.e., a wall or a floor) and full-scale
compartments—enclosed buildings or building portions such as a room, story, or entire structure.
These studies have helped the industry develop an understanding of the behavior of different
mass timber structures in fire, and this understanding is used to design mass timber buildings,
including in the context of building codes. For example, the 2021 IBC’s construction types limit
the number of stories in mass timber buildings based on the buildings’ design and the associated
fire risks.
According to the industry association WoodWorks, as of December 2022, 19 states had adopted
the tall wood building provisions of the 2021 IBC, some with local amendments.22 The
organization also noted that 12 cities and counties had adopted the 2021 IBC tall mass timber

17 For further discussion, see Jesse Heitz, “Heavy Timber 101, Part 1: History and Design,” International Fire Fighter,
November 12, 2015, and Faulstick, Wood’s Comeback.
18 Stephen S. Kelly and Richard Bergman, “Potential for Tall Wood Buildings to Sequester Carbon, Support Forest
Communities, and Create New Options for Forest Management,” FS, FPL, RIP-4851-018, 2017.
19 Lindsey Leardi, “Mass Timber: Shattering the Myth of Code Exceptions,” ArchDaily, May 12, 2021.
20 Scott Breneman, Matt Timmers, and Dennis Richardson, Tall Wood Buildings in the 2021 IBC, WoodWorks, 2022.
21 Joseph Abed et al., “A Review of the Performance and Benefits of Mass Timber as an Alternative to Concrete and
Steel for Improving the Sustainability of Structures,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 9 (May 5, 2022). Hereinafter referred
to as Abed et al., “Performance and Benefits of Mass Timber.”
22 Woodworks.org, “Status of Building Code Allowances for Tall Mass Timber in the IBC,” updated December 2022.
Congressional Research Service

8

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

provisions. These changes mean the allowable size of tall mass timber buildings has increased by
as much as 10 stories in these states and localities.
Mass Timber and the Environmental Impact of Structures
Mass timber’s potential to replace mineral materials has generated interest from those seeking to
reduce the building sector’s environmental impacts. Although estimates vary, data suggest the
carbon emissions from construction and materials manufacturing in the global building sector
may account for 10% or more of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.23 A recent study
concluded that if the global population increases to 9.3 billion by 2050, as projected by the United
Nations Population Division, then the cumulative GHG emissions from primary materials
production for the development of new infrastructure by 2050 will be about 350 gigatons (Gt) of
CO2. That would be approximately 35%-60% of the maximum global total of carbon that could
be emitted without increasing the average global temperature by more than 2°C.24 Other studies
conclude that reductions in the GHGs associated with the manufacture of mineral-based
construction materials—referred to as embodied GHG emissions—will be challenging for various
reasons, such as the lack of potential to increase manufacturing efficiency or to increase the use of
recycled materials.25 Researchers suggest that one potential strategy for mitigating the building
sector’s emissions includes substituting conventional mineral-based materials with products that
have lower embodied GHG emissions, such as mass timber.
Mass timber products may have lower embodied carbon emissions compared with mineral
materials in two ways: mass timber sequesters carbon, and mass timber generates relatively lower
GHG emissions in production than mineral materials. Although the results of analyses on this
topic vary, mass timber may sequester a mean of approximately 0.48 tons of carbon (tC) per 1 ton
of mass timber material, with a mean of approximately 0.12 tC emitted in production, or a net
sequestration of about 0.36 tC per ton.26 In contrast, steel and concrete materials sequester little to
no measurable carbon but result in larger emissions per unit—much more, in the case of steel (a
mean of approximately 0.54 tC per ton of material). Production of cement, the bonding material
in concrete, releases a median of approximately 0.78 tC per ton of material produced.27
On the building scale, several recent meta-analyses found significant reductions in carbon-related
measures of mass timber buildings compared with conventional construction. A 2022 review of
life-cycle analyses of CLT multistory buildings found an average 40% reduction in “carbon

23 United Nations Environment Programme (2020). 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction:
Towards a Zero‑emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector, Nairobi. This statistic excludes
emissions associated with the use of buildings (i.e., for electricity, heating, and cooling).
24 Daniel Muller et al., “Carbon Emissions of Infrastructure Development,” Environmental Science and Technology,
vol. 47 (2013), pp. 11739-11746 (hereinafter referred to as Muller et al., “Carbon Emissions of Infrastructure”); and
Galina Churkina et al., “Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,” Nature Sustainability, vol. 3 (April 2020), pp. 269-276
(hereinafter referred to as Churkina et al., “Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink”). Population projections from U.N.
Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, Comprehensive Tables, vol. 1, United Nations:
New York, 2012. The total greenhouse gas emissions level that would limit climate change to an average global
temperature increase of 2°C derive from Malte Meinshausen et al., “Greenhouse-Gas Emission Targets for Limiting
Global Warming to 2°C,” Nature, vol. 458 (2009), pp. 1158-1162.
25 Churkina et al., “Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,” and Muller et al., “Carbon Emissions of Infrastructure.”
26 Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up by plants (including trees) and
stored in biomass and soils. This storage of carbon helps offset sources of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. See CRS
Report R46312, Forest Carbon Primer, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “U.S. Cement Industry Carbon Intensities (2019)”, EPA 430-F-21-004,
October 2021.
Congressional Research Service

9

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

footprint” when using CLT compared with “conventional construction materials.”28 A separate
2022 review also found a 43% reduction in average embodied GHG emissions in mass timber
buildings compared with reinforced concrete.29 Both reviews found variability in the
environmental impacts of CLT buildings, which the reviews attributed to the diversity of the
buildings assessed (including their size, design, and location, as well as the type of building used
for comparison and other factors) and inconsistent methods in the underlying studies.
In general, it remains unclear what overall impacts mass timber adoption would have on
emissions from the building sector on a broad scale. The issue has not yet been widely studied,
and existing studies’ results are sensitive to research assumptions, such as the scale of wood
building adoption and the time horizon of analysis, among others. A 2020 article found that, in a
“90% timber” scenario where most new construction worldwide by 2050 was mass timber, the
total carbon stored by 2050 would be 2-20 Gt of carbon, equivalent to approximately 7-73 Gt of
CO2.30 In addition, the study found that the 90% timber scenario would avoid 36 Gt of CO2
emissions.31 A 2022 study found that housing 90% of the world’s new urban population by 2050
in new wood buildings would avoid approximately 106 Gt of additional CO2 emissions by 2050,
or about 10% of the maximum cumulative carbon emissions needed to limit global average
temperature increases to 2∘C.32 Both studies found a range of possible outcomes, with less
adoption of mass timber technology resulting in proportionally smaller impacts (i.e., less net
carbon sequestration or fewer avoided emissions). Both studies also noted that the assumption of
near-total adoption of mass timber technology is unlikely, meaning the reported impacts in the
upper range of potential effects are also unlikely.
Mass Timber, Forest Management, and the Timber Industry
Proponents of mass timber also have forecast a number of possible “upstream” benefits of mass
timber production and manufacturing, particularly if mass timber construction were adopted on a
broad scale. These benefits could occur if increased use of mass timber were to grow wood’s role
in the construction industry, which, in turn, could drive increased demand for timber, impacting
forest management outcomes and the rural economy. In this regard, mass timber has become part
of a broader conversation about the role of wood product markets in driving the extent,
composition, health, and management of forests.
Growth in the timber industry could expand opportunities for forest management. Forest
management is the process of intervening in forest processes and composition to promote desired

28 Adel Younis and Ambrose Dodoo, “Cross-Laminated Timber for Building Construction: A Life-Cycle-Assessment
Overview,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 52 (2022), p. 104482. This article is a meta-analysis of 27 life-cycle
assessments of CLT buildings compared with buildings of a variety of “conventional” materials, such as reinforced
concrete, steel, and others. As such, the 40% reduction should likely be viewed as a highly general average with
substantial variation for individual cases.
29 Zhuocheng Duan, Qiong Huang, and Qi Zhang, “Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber Construction: A Review,”
Building and Environment, vol. 221 (2022), p. 109320.
30 Churkina et al., “Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink.” The authors describe the “90% timber” scenario as being “in
which countries with current low industrialization levels also make the transition to timber in urban construction
through the evolution of the construction and material manufacturing sector.” It is unclear whether 90% refers to
countries, overall worldwide population, overall worldwide numbers of buildings, or some other measure; it is also
unclear whether “total carbon stored” includes all construction over the scenario period or only construction with wood.
Conversion to CO2 equivalents by CRS.
31 CRS calculation from Churkina et al., “Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink,” supplementary information, Table 9,
using the 90% timber scenario and business-as-usual scenarios, “Primary Structure + Enclosure” data.
32 Abhijeet Mishra et al., “Land Use Change and Carbon Emissions of a Transformation to Timber Cities,” Nature
Communications, vol. 13 (August 30, 2022), p. 4889.
Congressional Research Service

10

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

objectives, such as restoring wildlife habitat, reducing hazardous fuels (built-up organic material
that increases the risk of wildfire), or others.33 Commercial timber harvesting is a common
method for managing forests by removing certain trees to promote desired forest conditions. It
also can serve as a mechanism to finance forest management through timber revenues, including
in the federal forests of the National Forest System (NFS), managed by the FS, and the public
domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although these forests are
federally owned, timber harvesting on them—including timber harvesting for various forest
management purposes—is generally conducted by private contractors, who purchase the right to
harvest and sell specified federal timber.34 Such federal forest management activities are often
contingent on offering federal timber that is profitable to potential industry partners.
Some researchers and stakeholders posit that mass timber manufacturing could incentivize certain
forest management activities by expanding markets for certain kinds of harvested timber.35 In
particular, some forest management activities may involve harvesting trees that are too small to
be used as lumber (small-diameter materials); however, harvesting these trees may be
unprofitable due to low market prices or lack of downstream demand, potentially creating barriers
to certain forest management projects if commercial timber harvesting is not financially feasible.
Small-diameter materials are suitable for some forms of mass timber, such as CLT, and thus could
support associated forest management projects by generating demand for harvested trees.36 In
addition to the specific issue of small-diameter materials, stakeholders assert that increased mass
timber demand could result in various positive land management-related outcomes. For example,
some posit that mass timber (as well as forest products markets generally) can help support rural
economic development and prevent forestland conversion.37
In general, mass timber’s potential effects on the timber industry, forests, or forest management
are unclear. This is especially true with regard to any specific location or particular land
ownership situation (e.g., federal forests). Such effects are sensitive to assumptions about the
scale of mass timber adoption, which is speculative. Given this limitation, the small body of
research on mass timber’s impact on forest-related metrics in the United States has examined
possible impacts across a range of future demand scenarios. This research generally shows that
the impact of mass timber production on forest management would depend on the scale of mass
timber manufacturing in the United States and its geographic distribution. For example, a study
commissioned by the Softwood Lumber Board (SLB), an industry group, found that in its most
optimistic scenario, lumber consumption in 2035 may be 17% higher than current consumption
due to mass timber adoption. At the same time, the SLB study estimated a range of possible

33 For more information, see CRS Report R46976, U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
34 CRS Report R45688, Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle.
35 For example, see Asdrubali, “Properties of Wooden Materials,” and Melissa Kroskey, “Mass Timber: Providing
Value in a Differentiated Product While Contributing to Sustainability and Resiliency Goals,” Urban Land Institute,
October 25, 2021.
36 For example, see Magnus Fredriksson et al., “Using Small-Diameter Logs for Cross-Laminated Timber Production,”
BioResources, vol. 10, no. 1 (January 20, 2015), pp. 1477-1486; and Lauren Redmore et al., Mass Timber and Other
Innovative Wood Products in California: A Study of Barriers and Potential Solutions to Grow the State’s Sustainable
Wood Products Sector, Sierra Institute for Community and Environment, 2021.
37 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, The Business Case for
Climate Solutions, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 17, 2021; and Office of Senator Ron Wyden, “Wyden, Salinas, Duarte,
Gluesenkamp Perez Introduce Bill to Restore Forests, Boost Rural Economies by Supporting Wood Product
Innovation,” press release, July 28, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 11 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

outcomes.38 Another U.S.-specific study found that projected growth in existing forests would
exceed even the highest possible U.S. demand for mass timber.39 Outcomes likely would be
geographically dependent, as well. The SLB study predicted most mass timber lumber supply
would originate from the eastern United States, in which case there may be relatively few benefits
to the federal forests, which are located mostly in the West.40 Similarly, impacts to rural
economies could depend on where mass timber manufacturers are located. Other forest
management outcomes also would depend on the scale, location, and nature of timber harvesting
for mass timber.
Studies on worldwide impacts of mass timber adoption, also using various scenarios of potential
future mass timber demand, found wide ranges of potential impacts to forestland area, timber
demand, and other metrics.41 For example, some worldwide studies estimate increased demand
for wood to produce mass timber would lead to increased land conversion to plantation forests
worldwide and to increased harvesting of protected forests.42
Mass Timber and Tall Wood Building Market Penetration
Mass timber and tall wood buildings are a small percentage of total U.S. built environment. As of
March 2023, 1,753 mass timber projects had been constructed or were in design in the United
States; for context, approximately 5.9 million commercial buildings were constructed in 2019
alone.43 These mass timber projects include multifamily residential buildings, commercial
buildings, and various institutional buildings (e.g., schools, museums, theaters). They also include
nonbuilding structures, such as bridges. Some 24 mass timber structures are over 7 stories in
height, and the tallest, Ascent MKE (Figure 4), is a hybrid concrete-mass timber residential
building with 25 stories that was completed in 2022.44
According to industry advisory group Mass Timber Strategy, as of May 2023, there were 7
companies making CLT panels at locations in 5 U.S. states and 20 glulam manufacturers in 11
states.45 Most manufacturers are located in or near the Pacific Northwest (i.e., Oregon,
Washington, and nearby states) or the Southeast (i.e., Arkansas, Alabama, and other states in the

38 FPInnovations and Ben Romanchych Consulting, “Mass Timber Outlook,” presentation to Softwood Lumber Board,
October 2020; and Jeff Conmick, Luke Rogers, and Kent Wheiler, “Increasing Mass Timber Consumption in the U.S.
and Sustainable Timber Supply,” Sustainability, vol. 14 (December 30, 2021), p. 381 (hereinafter referred to as
Conmick, Rogers, and Wheiler, “Increasing Mass Timber Consumption”).
39 Conmick, Rogers, and Wheiler, “Increasing Mass Timber Consumption.”
40 FPInnovations and Ben Romanchych Consulting, “Mass Timber Outlook,” presentation to Softwood Lumber Board,
October 2020.
41 For example, see Prakash Nepal, Craig Johnson, and Indroneil Ganguly, “Effects on Global Forests and Wood
Product Markets of Increased Demand for Mass Timber,” Sustainability, vol. 13 (December 17, 2021), p. 13943; and
Abhijeet Mishra et al., “Land Use Change and Carbon Emissions of a Transformation to Timber Cities,” Nature
Communications, vol. 13 (August 30, 2022), p. 4889.
42 For example, see Prakash Nepal, Craig Johnson, and Indroneil Ganguly, “Effects on Global Forests and Wood
Product Markets of Increased Demand for Mass Timber,” Sustainability, vol. 13 (December 17, 2021), p. 13943; and
Abhijeet Mishra et al., “Land Use Change and Carbon Emissions of a Transformation to Timber Cities,” Nature
Communications, vol. 13 (August 30, 2022), p. 4889.
43 Woodworks.org, “Mass Timber Projects in Design and Constructed in the United States (March 2023),” March 2023;
and U.S. Energy Information Administration, “2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey,” 2020.
44 For more information, see Woodworks Innovation Network, “Ascent,” at
https://www.woodworksinnovationnetwork.org/projects/ascent.
45 Mass Timber Strategy, “Mass Timber Marketplace,” at https://www.masstimberstrategy.com/marketplace, accessed
May 22, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

12

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

region). Builders in the United States also can access mass timber components made worldwide,
such as from Canadian and European manufacturers.
Barriers to Adoption and Potential Disadvantages of Mass Timber
and Tall Wood Buildings
Mass timber and tall wood buildings may have some disadvantages over conventional
construction methods or face barriers to adoption. Because mass timber is an emerging
technology with minimal market share, researchers identify high costs, unfamiliarity within the
construction community, or unresolved questions about performance as potential disadvantages
compared with conventional construction. In some cases, it is unclear whether these issues are
intrinsic to mass timber itself or would change if mass timber were more widely used. These
issues are discussed below.
Mass timber is widely perceived as being more costly than comparable steel and concrete
building materials; however, the body of research on the costs of mass timber is small, and
conclusions are mixed. A 2022 review article specified that concern about high project costs is a
significant reason for slow adoption of mass timber construction.46 For example, the review’s
authors cited two studies that showed the use of mass timber could increase materials costs by
between 16% and 30% compared with mineral materials. Yet, the same review also cited other
studies that concluded mass timber use would result in materials costs savings or in which results
were unclear or dependent on other factors (e.g., where the mass timber was produced). Some
features of mass timber may reduce other building costs. For example, building with mass timber
can involve lower labor costs and shorter times to completion than building with mineral
materials, as mass timber components are typically prefabricated offsite and assembled on-site.
Ultimately, however, the construction industry’s perception of mass timber construction is that it
is more costly than comparable concrete and steel construction—which industry professionals
consistently cite as one of the most significant barriers to widespread adoption.47
Studies have identified other potential barriers to mass timber and tall wood building adoption.
Some have cited limitations in building codes (though it is unclear how the changes to the 2021
IBC may have affected these limitations, as most such issues were identified prior to the update
of the IBC). Some have identified unfamiliarity with mass timber in the architectural community;
for example, a 2022 survey of architects and structural engineers found that a lack of experience,
training, and tools among the construction industry was a key barrier to adoption of CLT. 48 In
addition, some have acknowledged a lack of demand for mass timber buildings or even resistance
on the part of potential clients. For example, some studies claim that clients may associate mass
timber with light-frame buildings’ relatively weaker structures and higher fire risk.49 Also at issue
are unresolved questions regarding tall mass timber buildings’ performance under certain
hazardous conditions, such as earthquakes and tornadoes (see “Questions Regarding Mass Timber
and Tall Wood Buildings”). The performance of conventional buildings in such conditions has
been established over decades of research and real-world observation, whereas most knowledge

46 Joseph Abed et al., “Performance and Benefits of Mass Timber.”
47 Ibid.
48 Patrick Penfield et al., “Assessing the Adoption of Cross Laminated Timber by Architects and Structural Engineers
Within the United States,” Journal of Green Building, vol. 17, no. 1 (March 25, 2022), pp. 127-147.
49 For example, see Clay Risen, “Cross-Laminated Timber Is the Most Advanced Building Material,” Popular Science,
February 26, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 19 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

about mass timber buildings’ performance in such situations is based on a relatively small body of
research.
Questions Regarding Mass Timber and Tall Wood Buildings
Mass timber and tall wood buildings are relatively new building technologies. Thus, questions
about their performance and marketability remain. According to a 2023 research needs
assessment of the mass timber industry conducted by FS, some issues requiring further
investigation regarding mass timber and tall wood building construction and design can be
summarized as follows:50
• Performance issues, such as managing moisture and insect pests, including in
varying climates.
• Safety issues, such as expanded investigations of fire performance (e.g., in larger
spaces or with more exposed wood surfaces) and performance of larger buildings
under hazardous conditions (e.g., earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes).
• Design and architectural issues, such as developing and testing certain kinds of
assemblies, repair methods, construction method standardization, and design
methods for certain weather hazards (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes).
• Materials and manufacturing processes, such as developing and standardizing
quality assurance and grading methods and use of alternative woods (i.e.,
hardwoods, mixed species, and reclaimed woods).
• Infrastructure/nonbuilding applications, such as bridges and highway sound
barriers.
Forest Service Programs and Authorities to Support
Mass Timber
The federal government funds research and provides financial and technical assistance to
facilitate wood product innovation, including development and deployment of mass timber and
tall wood buildings. This is generally (but not exclusively) done through the FS’s State and
Private Forestry (SPF) and Research and Development (R&D) mission areas, although some
authorities also relate to management of FS and BLM federal forests.
Through SPF, FS provides forest-related technical and financial assistance, outreach, and
education opportunities to various stakeholders, including the wood products community (e.g.,
nonprofits, businesses, educational institutions, forest landowners). FS SPF provides this
assistance for several purposes, such as promoting forest retention, forest health, and community
wildfire preparedness and improving, expanding, and marketing uses of wood and wood
products. FS SPF generally provides this assistance to the partners through grants, cooperative
agreements, or other instruments. FS has the general authority to provide such assistance;51
Congress also has authorized specific assistance programs, such as those to encourage wood
innovation, as listed in Table 1.52

50 Marco LoRicco et al., “Research Needs Assessment for the Mass Timber Industry,” Proceedings of the 3rd North
American Mass Timber Research Needs Workshop, FS, FPL, FPL-GTR-297, March 2023.
51 16 U.S.C. §2101.
52 See FS, “Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Other Agreements,” Forest Service Manual 1580, for a list and
discussion of statutory authorities.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19 link to page 19 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Through R&D, FS conducts research and extension on various forest-related topics, including
wood products. FS has a general mission to conduct, support, and cooperate in forest- and
rangeland-related research, including use of renewable resources such as wood products.53 FS
also may support or cooperate with other research organizations, including by offering
competitive research grants.54 FS organizes its research program using the FS National Research
Plan, which identifies five research emphasis areas, including forest products innovation.55
Research on wood products, potentially including innovative wood products, occurs throughout
FS R&D’s units, such as in the Southern, Pacific Northwest, Northern, and Rocky Mountain
research stations.56 In addition, FS R&D has a research unit focused specifically on wood
products, the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL).
The FS has collaborated with and/or supported various organizations to research, develop, and
deploy mass timber and tall wood building technology.57 For example, the FS partners with
WoodWorks, Thinkwood, and other industry groups and nonprofit organizations that provide
education and technical assistance to architects and developers to design and build mass timber
structures. The FS also has directly supported construction of tall wood buildings, such as Ascent
MKE. In addition, FS research on the fire, seismic, and other structural performance of tall wood
buildings supported changes to the 2021 IBC. It is not always clear what specific FS mission area
or authority has supported each of these—and other—activities. In general, the FS may conduct
such activities through its general SPF or R&D authorities, through specific programs (see Table
1), or through coordinated efforts across mission areas.
Table 1. Forest Service Programs and Authorities That May Support Innovative
Wood Products
Authorized
Program
Funding
Program
Activity
Authorization Authorization
FS Office
Community
Financial
7 U.S.C. §8113
Up to $25
SPF
Wood Energy
assistance
million annually,
and Wood
through FY2023
Innovations
(Community
Wood)
Forest Products
Research,
Authorized
No authorized
R&D
Laboratory
extension
under general
funding level
FS research
authorities,
16 U.S.C. §1642
Research and
Research,
7 U.S.C. §7655c
No authorized
R&D
Development
technical
funding level
Program for
assistance,
Wood Building
extension
Construction

53 16 U.S.C. §1642.
54 16 U.S.C. §1642(a).
55 FS, FY2020 Budget Justification, 2019.
56 FS, “Forest Products,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/forestproducts.
57 For example, see Brian Brashaw and Kevin Naranjo, Mass Timber Momentum Expands Forest Product Markets, FS,
October 21, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

15

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Authorized
Program
Funding
Program
Activity
Authorization Authorization
FS Office
Rural
Financial
7 U.S.C.
$5 million
R&D
Revitalization
assistance,
§6601(d)
annually,
Technologies
technical

through FY2023
assistance,
extension
Wood
Financial
7 U.S.C. §7655d
No authorized
SPF
Innovation
assistance
funding level
Grant Program
Source: CRS.
Notes: FS = Forest Service; R&D = Research and Development mission area; SPF = State and Private Forestry
mission area. Programs and authorities are listed in alphabetical order. For more information on FS’s financial
and technical assistance programs, see CRS Report R45219, Forest Service Assistance Programs, by Anne A. Riddle.
In addition to supporting activities related to mass timber, these programs may support other
activities related to wood utilization, such as specified wood energy projects or other innovative
wood products. These projects are described under the relevant headings below (e.g., see
“Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program” and “Wood Innovation Grant
Program”).
Forest Service State and Private Forestry Programs
Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program (Community Wood)
The Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program (Community Wood program)
provides cost-share grants to support innovative wood product facilities (including those that
produce mass timber) and community wood energy systems. Although the program can support
mass timber-related projects, most of the program’s funding has been used to support community
wood energy systems. Congress authorized the Community Wood program in the 2018 farm bill
by expanding the purposes and uses of an existing grant program focused on community wood
energy that had never received appropriations.58
The 2018 farm bill authorization provides cost-share grants for two project types: construction of
innovative wood product facilities and installation of community wood energy systems.
Innovative wood product facilities include facilities that produce mass timber, as well as other
products made of wood.59 Community wood energy systems are defined as energy systems for
public or private facilities that produce energy using unprocessed woody biomass, including
residuals.60
Cost-share grants made under the Community Wood program may cover up to 35% of the capital
cost for installing a community wood energy system or building an innovative wood product

58 P.L. 115-334. The Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program amended the Community Wood Energy
Program, established in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234 §9013; 7 U.S.C. §8113).
59 The definition of innovative wood product facilities also includes “wood products derived from nanotechnology or
other new technology processes, as determined by the Secretary; or other innovative wood products that use low-value,
low-quality wood, as determined by the Secretary.”
60 7 U.S.C. §8113(a)(1). For the purposes of the program, community wood energy systems must specifically produce
thermal energy or combined thermal energy and electricity, where thermal energy is the primary output, and must use
unprocessed woody biomass that does not cause the conversion of forests to non-forest use.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 21 link to page 21 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

facility, capped at a total of $1 million.61 A maximum of 25% of the annual grant funds may go to
projects proposing to build innovative wood products facilities. The Secretary is to consider these
criteria for awarding both categories of grants:
• energy efficiency;
• cost effectiveness;
• whether the project represents the best available commercial technology;
• likelihood of success, as demonstrated by detailed project specifications (e.g.,
engineering and design work) in advance of the grant application; and
• other “technical, economic, conservation, and environmental” criteria established
by the Secretary.
Additional criteria apply to community wood energy system grants.62 According to the FS, the
program emphasizes “assisting sawmills in economically challenged areas to retool or add
advanced technology.”63
The FS awarded the first grants under the Community Wood program in FY2020 (see Table 2 for
information on funded projects by year). Although project purposes under the program are not
always clear, most projects appear to relate to wood energy, with few projects directly related to
mass timber.
Table 2. Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program (Community
Wood) Funded Projects
Number of
Funding
Fiscal Year
Projects
(in millions of $)
2020
6
1.5
2021
7
2.1
2022
21
16.4a
Source: CRS, using information from Forest Service (FS), “Wood Innovations Data,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/
science-technology/energy-forest-products/wood-innovations-data; and FS, “2022 Community Wood Grant
Program Awards,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/energy-forest-products/wood-innovation-2022-
community-wood-grant-program-awards.
Notes: The Community Wood program is funded through the National Forest System Hazardous Fuels budget
line item.
a. Congress appropriated $15.0 million for the Community Wood program through regular appropriations for
FY2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division G Joint Explanatory Statement). The FS FY2024 budget justification specifies
that additional funding for Community Wood grants comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) and the budget reconciliation measure known as the Inflation Reduction Act (P.L. 117-169).

61 If special circumstances, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, apply, then the Community Wood program
may cover up to 50% of the capital cost for installing a community wood energy system or building an innovative
wood product facility, capped at a total of $1.5 million. Special circumstances may include situations such as if a
project involves a school or hospital in a low-income community.
62 Specifically, the Secretary of Agriculture must consider whether the proposed system will displace conventional
fossil fuel generation, minimize increases in emissions, increase delivered thermal efficiency, and use the most
stringent control technology possible.
63 FS, “Wood Innovations,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/energy-forest-products/wood-innovation.
Congressional Research Service

17

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Wood Innovation Grant Program
The Wood Innovation Grant Program provides cost-share grants and cooperative agreements to
support expansion of wood product and wood energy markets. The program has been used to
support both wood product and wood energy projects, though it has supported relatively more
wood product-related projects, including mass timber projects. Congress authorized the program
in the 2018 farm bill by formalizing in law an existing request for proposals (RFP) for grants
under another authority.64
The Wood Innovation Grant Program supports two categories of competitive grants and
cooperative agreements:
• Expanding and accelerating wood product markets (WPM), with preference
given to projects that support commercial building markets or other markets that
use innovative wood products, including (but not limited to) conducting training
and outreach on use of innovative wood building materials, facilitating
establishment of new building codes that incorporate innovative wood products,
developing regional or national market strategies and capacity, and completing
commercial construction projects using innovative wood materials.
• Expanding and accelerating wood energy markets (WE) that use wood residues
for heating, cooling, or electricity, including (but not limited to) feasibility
assessments and evaluations of wood energy potential across sectors or
geographies, developing “clusters” of wood energy projects, and completing late-
stage wood energy project development tasks (i.e., permitting, engineering
designs, cost analyses).
Although the 2018 farm bill referred to the RFP in codifying the Wood Innovation Grant Program
in law, certain program criteria and goals are defined in statute rather than in the RFP. The 2018
farm bill defined eligible entities and specified a 50% cost share for the funding.65 In addition, the
2018 farm bill specified that the Secretary of Agriculture shall give priority to proposals that
include retrofitting or use of existing sawmill facilities located in counties in which the average
annual unemployment rate exceeded the national average unemployment rate by more than 1% in
the previous calendar year.
Although the Wood Innovation Grant Program was not codified in law until the passage of the
2018 farm bill, the FS made grants and cooperative agreements in the WE and WPM categories
prior to 2018, under the previous authority. Thus, FS information on the Wood Innovation Grant
Program includes funding awarded prior to 2018.

64 Prior to the 2018 farm bill, the FS had established a Wood Innovation Grant Program based on the broad Rural
Revitalization Technologies authority (see “Rural Revitalization Technologies”). Congress directed the FS to award
one or more grants to specified eligible entities according to the program, as described in the Federal Register notice
for the FY2016 request for proposals (RFP) at 80 Federal Register 63498, October 2015. The RFP’s purpose was to
“substantially expand and accelerate wood energy and wood products markets throughout the United States to support
forest management needs on National Forest System and other forest lands.”
65 P.L. 115-334 §8643; 7 U.S.C. §7655d.
Congressional Research Service

18

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Table 3. Wood Innovation Projects and Funding
Fiscal
Year
Federal Funding (in millions of $)
Number of Projects

WE
WPM
Total
WE
WPM
Total
2015
3.7
4.7
8.3
20
23
43
2016
3.5
5.2
8.7
17
25
42
2017
2.5
5.9
8.4
12
26
38
2018
1.2
6.7
7.9
6
28
34
2019
2.2
6.6
8.8
11
29
40
2020
1.6
6.0
7.6
7
27
34
2021
2.4
6.1
8.4
12
29
41
2022a
—
—
16.4
—
—
78
Source: CRS, using information from https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/energy-forest-products/wood-
innovations-data and https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/energy-forest-products/wood-innovation-2022-
grant-recipients.
Notes: WE = wood energy markets; WPM = wood product markets. The Wood Innovation Grant Program is
funded through the National Forest System Hazardous Fuels budget line item. Figures may not sum due to
rounding.
a. FY2022 awards were not differentiated by grant type.
From FY2015 to FY2022, the FS awarded grants and cooperative agreements to 350 projects for
a total of approximately $74.5 million in federal funding.66 From FY2015 to FY2021, the FS
awarded funding to 187 projects in the WPM area, comprising approximately $41.1 million,
about 70% of the total awarded amount (FY2022 is excluded because grant awards were not
differentiated by type in that year).
Funded projects related to mass timber include various activities, such as the following:
• developing mass timber manufacturing processes and supply chains;
• developing and testing mass timber products, such as testing mass timber
products’ blast resistance, fire performance, seismic performance, and acoustic
characteristics;
• building mass timber structures and developing mass timber building techniques,
such as for various low- and mid-rise applications (e.g., townhouses, modular
dwellings, mid-rise commercial structures, temporary military structures,
schools), tall wood buildings, and other infrastructure (e.g., bridges);
• analyzing mass timber markets, the economics of mass timber manufacturing and
construction, and the lifecycle of mass timber products; and
• conducting outreach and education on construction methods for tall wood
buildings and mass timber.

66 FS uses funding provided through language in annual appropriations bills allocating between $5 million and $15
million annually for grants to encourage wood or biomass utilization. This language has been provided in various forms
since about FY2005, and sometimes Congress has further specified that the grants should incentivize the use of
biomass from national forests. For example, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2021 (P.L. 116-260), Congress
allocated approximately $12.5 million from the National Forest System account for grants “using any authorities
available to the Forest Service under the ‘State and Private Forestry’ appropriation, for the purpose of creating
incentives for increased use of biomass from NFS lands.”
Congressional Research Service

19

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Funding for Wood Product Manufacturing in the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) established a grant program to open or
improve wood product manufacturing facilities in close proximity to federal or Indian lands. Such
facilities must be located near federal or Indian forestland in need of restoration, particularly
areas at high risk of wildfire or insect and disease infestations, as determined by the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior. Facilities are eligible for funding if they purchase and process woody
materials (e.g., small-diameter materials) from projects on these lands. The first awards were
made under this program in April 2023. The nature of the facilities funded through the program is
not specified, so it is unclear whether any—and, if so, how many—relate to mass timber. Given
that mass timber manufacturing occurs after primary wood processing, it is also unclear whether
mass timber facilities would be broadly eligible for the grants.
In April 2023, the FS awarded $29.0 million to 42 projects in 15 states, primarily in the western
United States. In most states, the FS funded one or two projects, with by far the most (14) in
California. The FS specified that “more than two thirds” of the funded facilities would use
byproducts from forest restoration on landscapes identified in the FS’s Wildfire Crisis Strategy,
the agency’s 10-year strategy to reduce hazardous fuels.67 The FS also specified that two-thirds of
all funded facilities were in “disadvantaged communities,” as identified by the Climate and
Economic Justice Screening Tool.68
Forest Service Research and Development Programs
Forest Products Laboratory
FPL, established in 1910, is a research facility within the FS’s R&D mission area. FPL focuses
specifically on “identifying and conducting innovative wood and fiber utilization research.”69
FPL’s research emphasizes areas such as advanced composites, advanced structures,
nanotechnology, woody biomass utilization, and forest biorefinery (developing and using fuels
and chemicals from wood).70 Much of FPL’s work directly relates to innovative wood products,
such as researching, developing, and testing mass timber products and structures. FPL cooperates
with industry, academia, and nonprofits to conduct research, outreach, education, and technology
transfer.71 FPL also patents technologies developed at FPL or other FS research units and makes
patented technologies available for licensing or cooperative research opportunities.72
The 2018 farm bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct research and development,
education, and technical assistance to facilitate the use of innovative wood products in building
construction.73 These activities can take place at the FPL or through the SPF mission area, or they

67 FS, “Wood Products Infrastructure Assistance Grants,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/energy-forest-
products/wood-innovation/wood-products-infrastructure-assistance-grants.
68 FS, “Biden-Harris Administration Invests Nearly $34M to Strengthen Wood Products Economy, Forest Sector Jobs,
Sustainable Forest Management,” press release, April 6, 2023.
69 FS, FPL, “FPL Mission and Strategic Plan,” at https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/research/research_emphasis_areas/
index.php.
70 Ibid.
71 FS, FPL, “Partnerships,” at https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/partners/index.shtml.
72 FS, FPL, “Patents and Licensing,” at https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/partners/patents/index.shtml.
73 P.L. 115-334 §8642; 16 U.S.C. §7655c.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 9 Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

can occur through competitive grants to institutions of higher learning. These activities are to
prioritize the following:
• improved commercialization of innovative wood products;
• safety and life-cycle analyses of tall wood building materials, manufacturing, and
construction;
• impacts of innovative wood products on wildlife; and
• other areas identified by the Secretary of Agriculture in collaboration with
stakeholders.
The law specified that the research program is to focus on measurable performance goals, which
“shall be achievable within a 5-year timeframe.”74 It is unclear what, if any, specific projects have
been conducted or funded under this program, as many FS R&D activities related to innovative
wood products predate the enactment of this provision.
Rural Revitalization Technologies
Congress has directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and carry out programs relating to
rural economic development (known as Forestry Rural Revitalization).75 These programs are
implemented through different USDA agencies, including the FS. In particular, the Rural
Revitalization Technologies (RRT) section of this authority authorizes the FS, acting through the
FPL, to carry out a program to accelerate adoption of technologies and establish small business
enterprises that use biomass and small-diameter wood materials.76 The RRT also authorizes the
FS to create community-based wood-related enterprises through marketing activities and
demonstration projects. The authority afforded by RRT is broad, and the FS has undertaken a
number of activities under it (for example, see “Wood Innovations Grant Program”). The other
sections of the Forestry Rural Revitalization program are administered through the National
Institute for Food and Agriculture.
Other Authorities
In the past, Congress has sometimes sought to incentivize or encourage timber harvesting on
federal land that supported or provided feedstock for specified forestry industries. For example, in
the 115th Congress, Congress authorized the FS and BLM to give a procurement preference under
the stewardship contracting authority to contractors that would promote an innovative use of
harvested forest products, including CLT. The stewardship contracting authority is generally
viewed as a tool for streamlining and incentivizing restoration of federal forests through several
mechanisms, such as by allowing contracts that combine multiple forest management activities at
once and offsetting the costs of restoration activities with revenues from timber harvesting. It is
unclear to what extent this provision of the stewardship contracting authority has been used, if at
all.
The FS also has used general FS and federal authorities to acquire and construct buildings using
mass timber. For example, the FS recently constructed the new supervisor’s office of the Nez
Perce-Clearwater National Forest of mass timber (see Figure 2). The FS, and other federal
agencies, may be able to undertake similar projects in the future for various administrative,

74 7 U.S.C. §7655c(d).
75 7 U.S.C. §6601.
76 7 U.S.C. §6601(d).
Congressional Research Service

21

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

recreational, and other buildings and structures (see “Materials Preferences in Federally Owned
or Assisted Buildings”).
Options for Congress
Some in Congress have expressed interest in increasing the adoption of mass timber and tall
wood buildings.77 Should Congress wish to provide support for this policy in addition to the
programs and funding previously described, options for consideration could include the
following:
Expanding Mass Timber Assistance and Research and
Development Programs
In general, Congress has primarily supported mass timber and tall wood buildings through the FS
assistance and research programs described above (see “Forest Service Programs and Authorities
to Support Mass Timber”). Options for further action could include increasing appropriations to
these programs to increase the number or size of funded projects and providing additional
congressional direction for existing programs or amendments to underlying statutes. In weighing
such options, for example, Congress could consider whether additional eligible uses of grant
funding should be specified under the Wood Innovations and Community Wood programs or
whether to limit the programs’ eligible projects to eliminate competing project categories. Other
options include reducing the nonfederal cost-share or match requirement for existing grant funds
or establishing new grant programs related to mass timber; both of these options are included in
H.R. 5044 and S. 2662 of the 118th Congress.
Other options could include clarifying or adding to the purposes of other assistance and research
programs to ensure mass timber is included across a variety of federal agencies. For example,
Congress could consider whether to provide explicit direction regarding mass timber and the
funding for wood product facilities in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, either by
amending the act or through other legislation (see “Funding for Wood Product Manufacturing in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act”). As another example, Congress could require that
ongoing federal research related to building sustainability and safety, such as that conducted by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, incorporate mass timber.78
Authorization of new assistance or research programs to address specific mass timber-related
issues of interest could also be an option—for example, programs specific to tall wood buildings
or non-building wood structures. In general, approaches relating to expanding federal programs or
funding may require competition for scarce federal resources (e.g., funding, program staff),
whereas approaches relating to eliminating competing project types may face opposition from
those issues’ stakeholders.

77 For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Full Committee Hearing On
Forest Management, Forest Products, and Carbon, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2021.
78 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) programs of interest may include the agency’s Sustainable
and Energy-Efficient Manufacturing, Materials, and Infrastructure Program, which focuses on improvements in
measurement science and data relating to sustainable buildings, and NIST’s National Fire Research Laboratory, a
facility dedicated to understanding fire behavior and buildings’ response to fire. For more information, see CRS Report
R43908, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview, by John F. Sargent Jr.
Other federal agencies also may have programs related to building sustainability, safety, and other related topics.
Congressional Research Service

22

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Materials Preferences in Federally Owned or Assisted Buildings
and Structures
Another option for Congress could be to express a preference or create a requirement that
federally owned, rented, or assisted structures be made in whole or in part of mass timber. In the
case of federally owned structures, options could include applying a price or procurement
preference for mass timber structures, either across the federal government or for certain agencies
(e.g., the Department of Defense). In the case of federally funded projects, selection preferences
or other project-selection incentives for projects that include mass timber components could be
established, such as higher funding or reduced matching requirements. These could apply either
across the federal government or for certain agencies or project types (e.g., projects funded by the
Department of Transportation or the Department of Housing and Urban Development). For
example, in the 118th Congress, S. 2991 would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to procure specified structures made using domestic mass timber, subject to certain
requirements.79
Requirements or incentives to use mass timber in federal structures may dovetail with a number
of existing laws. In particular, they may complement laws addressing federal green buildings
requirements—requirements that federally owned structures have reduced environmental
footprints compared with standard practices. For example, federal law requires all federal
agencies to implement green building practices, including reducing the environmental impacts of
materials used in building construction, enhancing the quality of the indoor environment, and
meeting many other criteria, many of which may be met by mass timber buildings.80 Similarly,
federal policies have previously provided incentives for federally funded buildings to adopt green
building elements. In a specific example of both options in recent legislation, the Inflation
Reduction Act provided $2.15 billion in funding for the General Services Administration to build
or alter federally owned buildings using materials with reduced embodied carbon emissions and
authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide certain forms of financial
assistance to promote low-carbon or net-zero energy projects.81
For those seeking to provide additional support for mass timber, potential advantages of policy
approaches related to federal procurement are that they may drive demand for mass timber
materials and construction, help develop expertise among the construction industry, and provide
practical “showcases” for mass timber construction and design. The extent of these benefits may
be driven in part by which policy option is chosen. In aggregate, there are more federally funded
than federally owned buildings and structures, meaning approaches related to federally funded
projects may present a larger opportunity than those related to federally owned buildings.
However, the greater degree of federal control in federal procurement processes versus
stakeholder-driven projects may lead to more certainty in the amount of mass timber projects
supported—for example, if no stakeholders take advantage of mass timber-related federal funding
opportunities.
Because of the relatively low market penetration of mass timber structures so far, the federal
government under this option likely would face increased costs, such as materials costs or the
costs to hire from a small, specialized pool of contractors. In the case of federally owned
structures, these costs would be reflected in increased procurement costs. In the case of federally

79 S. 2991 would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to procure “facilities, buildings, or structures”
made using domestically produced mass timber, including not fewer than 100 single-occupancy restrooms.
80 For more information, see CRS Report R46719, Green Building Overview and Issues, by Corrie E. Clark.
81 P.L. 117-169 §60503 and §70003.
Congressional Research Service

23

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

funded projects, these costs could be reflected more subtly. For example, higher costs per project
may mean fewer projects could be funded under the same program, or requirements to include
mass timber could prevent partners from pursuing projects at all if they could not locate skilled
contractors. Such issues may potentially be overcome by providing increased resources for mass-
timber related programs, such as through increased appropriations, although this approach would
be contingent on those increased appropriations successfully competing against other budget
priorities.
Federal Timber Harvesting Authorities and Mass Timber
As described above (see “Other Authorities”), Congress has sometimes sought to incentivize or
encourage timber harvesting on federal land that supported or provided feedstock for specified
forestry industries, such as the procurement preference for mass timber under the stewardship
contracting authority. Congress may wish to consider other means of incentivizing mass timber
production through activities in federal forests, such as federal timber harvesting. This approach
may be of particular interest for legislators who hope to realize land management-related benefits
from the mass timber industry.
One option for Congress could be to apply a procurement preference to prospective timber
purchasers when offering or awarding federal timber sales or other mechanisms involving timber
harvesting—for example, through the Good Neighbor authority.82 Other options could include
reducing the costs of timber to purchasers who would use the timber for mass timber
manufacturing, such as reducing per-unit or total sales prices after bidding. Another option could
be making available certain timber sales specifically and only for mass timber production.
Approaches that facilitate access to federal timber (such as the options described in the preceding
paragraph) could provide reduced materials costs for mass timber manufacturers, incentives for
mass timber manufacturers to locate near federal forests, or incentives for certain forest
management activities. A potential issue with this approach could be limitations on the ability to
oversee whether timber is ultimately used for mass timber production (e.g., if timber purchasers
are not the processors of the wood). Some stakeholders also may have concerns about favoring
certain forestry industries over others or procurement practices that result in reduced revenues to
the federal government, which may affect the funding available for certain land management
activities.83 Previous legislative efforts to secure federal timber supplies for specific sectors of the
forest economy have sometimes collapsed due to economic conditions, allegations of
anticompetitive behavior, or both.84
Other Options
Various other instruments exist to influence mass timber’s patterns of use, production, and trade.
Such tools include tariffs and other trade restrictions, tax incentives, preferential access to credit,
and industry-specific business and manufacturing development support (e.g., loans, loan
guarantees, and similar programs). The use of these instruments in the modern era to support

82 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11658, The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands, by Anne A.
Riddle.
83 For information on FS and Bureau of Land Management uses of revenues from timber harvesting, see CRS Report
R45688, Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle; and CRS Report R43872, National Forest System
Management: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
84 For example, see David Clary, “What Price Sustained Yield? The Forest Service, Community Stability, and Timber
Monopoly Under the 1944 Sustained Yield Act,” Journal of Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1 (January 1, 1987).
Congressional Research Service

24

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

individual industries has been mixed and often specific to a particular situation. As such, it is
unclear whether these instruments are pertinent or politically viable in the context of mass timber.
For example, past presidential Administrations have used trade policy to protect other sectors of
the timber industry, particularly the lumber industry.85 However, it is unclear whether such a
strategy would be viable for mass timber. U.S. trade policy generally has focused on liberalizing
markets by reducing trade barriers through trade agreements and negotiations and relieving
companies and workers facing unfair competition from imports.86 It is currently unclear whether
competition from foreign mass timber producers would be considered injurious, and so it is
unclear how historically “typical” levers of U.S. trade policy might support the growing U.S.
mass timber industry. However, some policymakers have questioned the rationale behind
historical U.S. trade policy and have called for suspending (or reversing) efforts to liberalize trade
and increasing trade barriers to protect domestic industries—a model that could be tried for mass
timber but would represent in a departure from historical norms.87
As another example, federal support for business development in broad sectors (i.e., for
businesses in rural areas, small businesses, and businesses owned by certain demographic groups)
is a central role of agencies and programs such as the Small Business Administration, the USDA’s
Rural Development mission area, and the Department of Commerce.88 However, business
development and support programs specific to individual industries are comparatively rare and
generally have been authorized in response to critical economic, political, national security, and
other concerns.89 In addition, some aspects of federal business development policy have been
incorporated in existing assistance programs, such as the eligibility of businesses for FS SPF
grant programs.

Author Information

Anne A. Riddle

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

85 For more information, see CRS Report R42789, Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Current Issues, by Katie
Hoover; and CRS Insight IN11364, Forest Service Announces Timber Sale Contract Relief, by Anne A. Riddle.
86 For more information on U.S. trade policy, see CRS Report R45148, U.S. Trade Policy Primer: Frequently Asked
Questions, coordinated by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs; and CRS In Focus IF10156, U.S. Trade Policy: Background and
Current Issues, by Shayerah I. Akhtar, Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, and Karen M. Sutter.
87 For more information on debates in U.S. trade policy, see CRS In Focus IF12327, U.S. Trade Policy: Future
Direction and Key Economic Debates, by Andres B. Schwarzenberg.
88 For more information, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock
Cowan (congressional clients may contact the author for further information); CRS Report RL33243, Small Business
Administration: A Primer on Programs and Funding, by Robert Jay Dilger, R. Corinne Blackford, and Anthony A.
Cilluffo; and CRS Report R46816, The Minority Business Development Agency: An Overview of Its History and
Programs, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
89 For example, in the 117th Congress, the CHIPS Act of 2022 (Division A of P.L. 117-167) included provisions to
support domestic semiconductor manufacturing, a critical “enabling technology” for a wide array of U.S. industries,
due to concerns related to international competitiveness and national security. For more information, see CRS Report
R47523, Frequently Asked Questions: CHIPS Act of 2022 Provisions and Implementation, by John F. Sargent Jr.,
Manpreet Singh, and Karen M. Sutter.
Congressional Research Service

25

Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47752 · VERSION 1 · NEW
26

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Oct. 12, 2023

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Energy Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON