provided by: 
As users of wood-based materials, woodworkers appreciate the value of the softwood, hardwood and manufactured wood products they use.
They also, for the most part, support the policies of establishing and maintaining the sustainable forests that produce these materials. Without an ample and ongoing supply of fiber, they'd be tearing down all the old barns and abandoned buildings in your neighborhoods in order to "harvest" the required materials for projects. It's kind of a "don't bite the hand that feeds you" concept.
Still, there is confusion in the industry — and in certain states and regions — when the topic of the guidelines and standards that govern "green" manufacturing practices arises, particularly as it relates to rating systems like LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).
Unfortunately, these standards are interpreted differently, at times, from region to region and state to state. This is particularly evident when it comes to how the respective states define LEED as it relates to awarding state-funded building projects.
This may not be universally true in every state in the union. However, in my state, Wisconsin, there is some confusion regarding these guidelines and standards, how they are defined and how the LEED program is administered.
Basically, LEED requires documentation of the raw materials from the certified wood lot to the end product. There has to be a paper trail of the material from beginning to end.
According to a Wisconsin Division of State Facilities "Sustainable Facilities Guideline" document, "These Guidelines and Standards are designed to promote and ensure that state facilities are constructed and renovated in a sustainable manner, starting with initial project planning and continuing through occupancy and operation."
The document also covers other environmental issues like air and water quality. But I'm only addressing the issue as it relates to wood.
What is required here is FSC certification for much of the wood-based materials used in a state government project. Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. However, the paperwork required for certification is lengthy and time-consuming. And, sometimes the guidelines are nearly impossible to satisfy, much less interpret.
The result is, in many instances, some secondary manufacturers are saying they aren't competing on a level playing field because of how the guidelines and standards are interpreted and administered. They say states with much looser guidelines have an advantage.
One unfortunate result is that even though all state forests here in Wisconsin are FSC certified, there are only one or two mills that are FSC certified. Another downside is the guideline that says wood-based materials for state projects must come from FSC certified supply sources within a prescribed radius — either 500 or 750 miles, depending on whom you talk to.
For example, if a state job specification calls for FSC certified quarter-sawn hard maple, and there is none within the state-established radius, then you're out of luck. As one woodworker told me: "Under these rules, our bids will always be higher . . . What we'd like to do is open up the FSC certification guidelines to allow us some leeway in the bidding process. We'd also like to know whether the state's LEED requirements are mandates or just guidelines."
Potentially, this affects the taxpayers who pay the bills for these projects, as job specs carry a more expensive price tag because of higher materials costs.
I've been told that some states, Iowa and Washington for example, have much looser guidelines regarding the awarding of state jobs.
This issue hasn't reached the crisis stage in my state. In fact, state officials here have been and are willing to sit down with the woodworkers and discuss their differences. Let's hope that the Badger state and others who are grappling with this issue can come to an equitable compromise — so everyone can be a winner.
author: By Steve Ehle