Purchasing Wood prior to Obtaining CoC Certificate

Technically, according to both FSC and LEED rules, the answer is "no" - if the supplier didn't have FSC CoC at the time when they provided the materials to the project contractor, then they broke the chain of custody, and the wood can't be considered FSC-certified. Obviously, from the time that the supplier got their FSC CoC certificate forward, any sales of FSC-certified product do count toward MRc7. The moral of this story is that LEED project teams, contractors on LEED projects and wood products suppliers need to understand MRc7 requirements early enough in the construction process so that vendors have time to get their FSC CoC. It's too bad that FSC into LEED requires all this hoop-jumping (and added expense) when most other MR credits basically operate on the honor system (unverified manufacturer claims are sufficient to satisfy credit documentation requirements). The playing field is not level.

I agree with Jason. When we get to the point that we are advising our clients not to pursue a credit because of the difficulty of documenting it, something is wrong with our intent based, do the right thing system.

Having been closely involved with documenting almost every LEED NC Credit available, I would rank the Certified Wood Credit at about 5 out of 10 for difficulty. The top winners for difficulty in my experience are Measurement + Verfification, Energy Optimization and Daylight+Views. These credits can make MR 7 look like a cake walk. Several others, like increased ventilation, can easily fall in the 6-8 category. I agree - the difficulty level for earning a credit definitely should NOT stop a project from pursuing a credit. And, while LEED Certification and process have their an inherent and important value, such as keeping the team / client focused on their sustainability goals, improving accountability, improving performance (yes, its true! Regardless of the nay sayers, green projects perform better than conventional projects in my experience) and of course there are the all important bragging rights. But the main reason for doing all of this is to improve the quality of life on the planet...scoring points and publishing your results are the icing on the cake. I personally believe the CoC and documentation are critical for the certified wood credit due to the nature of what is being documented, the breadth of the claim (FSC Certification) and the challenge of assessing the validity of the claims. On the other hand, Recycled Content and Regional Material Claims, while they are self-declared manufacturer statements, are a little more self evident (not for all things, but for many). It's pretty well known what the general recycled content is for an I-beam and it's fairly consistent from one manufacture to another. Or, If someone claims that the glass they used on a project is Regional, well, you can check up on that with the address + google search and a little sluething. Many times the reviewers at USGBC will spot check your MR 4 and 5 submittals and flag obvious gafs in any claims. So while not perfect and definitely finicky - I personally vote for maintaining a reasonable amount of CoC documentation....otherwise the critique will quickly go the other direction and there will be nothing but greenwash claims and a complete lack of credibility in LEED Certifications / FSC. Just my 2 cents... Doug

Hi Doug, I don't disagree but I'd like to point out that the "difficult" credits you allude to are all ones that can be addressed with a little practice and experience. We routinely achieve all of those and do that documentation ourselves. Those credits also tend to yield more points and directly improve indoor environmental quality and energy use for users and owners making them "worth the trouble". I believe that MR7 frustrations stand out because they tend to be about the paperwork itself rather than the requirements. It's relatively a lot more work and cost for that 1 pt when you are looking at the big picture for the project.