To Dam or Not to Dam

  • Residents on Boardman Pond are upset about the water level dropping after the pond was drawn down because of safety concerns at a nearby dam. Homeowners here are worried that if the dams are taken out, they'll lose their waterfront property permanently. (Photo courtesy of Jim and Joane McIntyre)

America has been a country that builds
dams. There are more than 75,000 major
dams in the US. But now, a lot of those dams
are getting old and they’re breaking down.
That means people who live near those dams have
some choices to make. Rebecca Williams has
the story of neighbors who are debating what
to do with their river:

Transcript

America has been a country that builds
dams. There are more than 75,000 major
dams in the US. But now, a lot of those dams
are getting old and they’re breaking down.
That means people who live near those dams have
some choices to make. Rebecca Williams has
the story of neighbors who are debating what
to do with their river:

We’ve built dams for good reasons – they can produce electricity and help
control floods. But a lot of the dams in the US are 50 or even a hundred years
old. In dam years, that’s really old.

“Right now we’re sittin’ on an earthen dam, which is Union Street dam.”

Sandra Sroonian lives in Traverse City, Michigan. It’s a touristy town on a
bright blue bay of Lake Michigan. The Boardman River flows into the Great
Lake and it cuts right through town. There are four old dams on the
Boardman.

The utility company that licensed those dams decided they weren’t profitable
anymore. So they gave up the licenses, and now the city and county are trying
to decide what the heck they’re gonna do with the dams.

Sroonian is an engineer who’s turned into a mediator of sorts. She’s helping
people here sort through all the options. Some of the dams could be made to
generate power again, or some of the dams could be taken out to restore the
river to a more natural state. The water would be faster and colder.

“So depending if you’re a fisherman or fisherperson you may feel it’s a benefit
to remove the dams to improve the fishing along the river.”

She says other people want a whitewater park to kayak on.

But the Boardman is a blue ribbon trout stream, it’s one of the best. Biologists
say it’d be even better without the dams.

And then, there are the people who say they have the most to lose if the dams
are taken out.

(sound at Boardman Pond)

Jim and Joane McIntyre live on Boardman Pond.

“When we bought this house 14 years ago it never entered our minds that we
wouldn’t always be on this wonderful little piece of paradise.”

McIntyre says if the dams are taken out, their pond will be drained. They’ve
actually gotten a taste of that already. Because of safety concerns at one of the
dams the water level in the pond was lowered. The McIntyre’s dock is 25 feet
above the water. They can’t even get their boat out on the water.

“We would be having this interview floating around on our electric deck boat
with an adult beverage (laughs). But we’re not able to do that. So from that
standpoint we’ve lost some of the attractiveness of living on water – it’s
beautiful but we want to use it.”

The McIntyres say they want what’s best for the river. But they also want to
keep their waterfront property. And they say it’d make more sense to produce
electricity from the river.

And that’s what this debate is boiling down to: energy versus property rights
versus the environment versus the economy.

Mike Estes is the Mayor of Traverse City. He says boosting the local economy
matters most.

“We’re trying to increase tourism here. Traverse City is already a destination
spot for people to visit – they visit because of our golden sand beaches and the
bay. Adding the river to it is simply going to add to that mix.”

This dam debate has lasted more than three years – there’ve been lots of studies
and dozens of public meetings. Some people here joke they won’t be alive by
the time the whole thing gets resolved.

But a decision on this Michigan river is expected by the end of the year. Most
people think it’ll be a compromise – maybe keep some of the old dams, take
some out.

A lot of towns close to rivers all across the nation will be having these same
debates.

And you can bet that not everyone’s going to be happy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Congressman Proposes Clean Water Trust Fund

A proposed national clean water trust fund will be debated in Congress over the next year, with help from a leading House Republican. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story:

Transcript

A proposed national clean water trust fund will be debated in Congress
over the next year, with help from a leading House Republican. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story:


Sewage treatment agencies and some environmental groups have been
pushing for a dedicated national fund to help control sewer overflows
and protect regional waters like the Great Lakes.


Recently, House Water Resources Sub-Committee Chair John Duncan,
Junior introduced the Clean Water Trust Act. The Tennessee Republican
says the nation’s water infrastructure needs more federal money, but it
isn’t clear where Congress would find the 38 billion dollars over five
years.


Ken Kirk of National Association of Clean Water Agencies says he
doesn’t know yet who would pay.


“But I think if you would poll the American people, I think you would
find at least two things. One, clean water is a high priority, and
two, they are willing to pay more.”


Kirk contends a clean water trust fund would be similar to programs
financing highways and airports.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Annex 2001 Moves Forward

State legislatures around the Great Lakes will be the next stop for a water diversion plan recently endorsed by the region’s governors and provincial leaders. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

State Legislatures around the Great Lakes will be the next stop for a
water diversion plan recently endorsed by the region’s Governors and
provincial leaders. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


The Annex 2001 implementing agreements aim to block any long-
distance diversion of Great Lakes water. The plan may allow some
water to go to communities that straddle the Great Lakes basin. All eight
state legislatures in the region must okay the agreements.


Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, is chair of the Council of Great Lakes
Governors. He says he hopes lawmakers give the plan bi-partisan
support. He says it tries to fairly handle water requests.


“We now have standards, we have a framework, we have a way to
discuss these issues.”


Some lawmakers on the edge of the Great Lakes basin are seeking more
lake water for their communities. So, the debate over the diversion
plan could take several months. If the states sign on, the proposal would
then go to congress for final approval.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Roadblocks for Water Diversion Agreement?

  • The Annex 2001 Agreement discusses how much and to whom the water from the Great Lakes is going. Ontario objects to the current Agreement in fear that it doesn't do enough to protect the Lakes. (Photo by Kym Parry)

Ontario provincial leaders say they’re not willing to sign
a draft agreement aimed at protecting the Great Lakes from diversion in its current form. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, observers say Ontario’s objections won’t sidetrack negotiations on the agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter
Annex:

Transcript

Ontario provincial leaders say they’re not willing to sign a draft agreement aimed at protecting the Lakes from water diversions in its current form. Observeers say the objections won’t sidetrack negotiations on the agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter Annex. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has this report:


The Charter Annex would give the eight states and two provinces that surround the Lakes a say in how much water can be diverted out of the Lakes to other regions. But Ontario officials say they don’t think the current draft goes far enough to protect the Lakes. David Natzger is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors, which is coordinating negotiations bewteent he states and provinces to implement the Annex. Natzger says the announcement reflects healthy debate, and not a snag in the process.


“I think it says that there’s a lot of interest in this issue in Ontario, and certainly there were some concerns that were raised in the public comment period, and they will be taken into consideration as changes are considered and made, ultimately.”


In January, the staffs of the Great Lakes governors and premiers plan to start negotiating changes to the Annex. Natzger says the changes will reflect some of the concerns brought forward in ten-thousand public comments.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Presidential Profile: George W. Bush

  • Many groups, including environmentalists and industry lobbyists, are scrutinizing the presidential candidates' opinions on environmental policy. (Photo courtesy of georgewbush.com)

The presidential candidates haven’t spent a lot of time talking about conservation or the environment. On the campaign trail, nature has taken a backseat to the economy and security. In the first of four reports on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the environmental record of President George W. Bush:

Transcript

The presidential candidates haven’t spent a lot of time talking about conservation or the
environment. On the campaign trail, nature has taken a backseat to the economy and security. In
the first of four reports on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the environmental record of President George W. Bush:


President Bush doesn’t often use the words “environment” or “environmental.” He prefers
“conservation.” It’s part of his philosophy. He believes we should manage resources and believes
the government has tipped the scales too far in favor of preservationists at the expense of business and agriculture. On his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush likes to exercise by cutting brush to manage nature. It’s could be a metaphor for how he sees the larger issue. It seemed that way when he talked about his approach to the environment during the second debate.


“I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land. The quality of the air’s cleaner since I’ve been the President. Fewer water complaints since I’ve been the President. More land being restored since I’ve been the President.”


While President Bush believes he’s striking the right balance between conserving natural
resources and not regulating business excessively, many environmentalists think the Bush
Administration’s approach to environmental issues is way out of whack.


Betsey Loyless is the Vice President of Policy for the League of Conservation Voters. The LCV
keeps track of votes and issues and grades politicians on their decisions.


“League of Conservation Voters gave George Bush an “F,” the first “F” we’ve ever given out in
modern history to a president because his policies of anti-environmentalism spread across the
board of dirty air, dirty water, degrading our public lands and jeopardizing our energy future by
focusing on 19th century energy policies that don’t meet our 21st century needs.”


President Bush largely ignores criticism from environmental groups. He sees them as extremists.
On the campaign trail, he frames the debate about the environment in terms of finding a better
balance between the protecting the environment and keeping jobs.


“If we want to keep jobs here in America and expand the job base, America must be the best place
in the world to do business. That means less regulations on our business owners.”


You would think that would make business and industry-types happy. But even there, the
President has his critics. The free-market supporters are disappointed in George Bush. They feel
he should have stuck to the ideas he had when he was running for president four years ago: Roll
back regulations that some businesses say cost a lot of money with little benefit to the
environment. The Property and Environment Research Center – self-described as the center for
free market environmentalism – gave the President a “C-minus” grade on his mid-term report card
because the free-market thinkers believe the Bush Administration compromised its original
proposals to please environmentalists and ended up pleasing no one.


Even some in President’s own party are unhappy with the Bush administration’s dealings with the
environment. The group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, backed by former Republican
EPA Administrators and other prominent Republicans say the President got it wrong. Jim DiPeso
is the group’s Policy Director. His group believes the Bush administration could have done more to
protect the environment.


“Well, our board took a look at the issue and decided that President Bush had not earned our
support based on his record over the last four years. So, because we have a policy of not
endorsing Democrats, the only alternative that we had in order to express our disappointment was
simply to withhold an endorsement for the presidential race this year.”


But the majority of Republicans say the President is making progress on environmental issues.
Lynn Scarlett is one of the architects of the Bush environmental policy. She is Assistant Secretary
of the Department of Interior’s Office of Policy Management and Budget.


“This administration has the highest dollars ever expended by any administration going towards
environmental protection whether it’s on the pollution side and pollution clean up or on the land
management and conservation side. We have a number of new programs the President initiated.
So, there is an awful lot that is occurring that is getting results on the ground.”


President Bush believes the government should be partners with private landowners and
industry… encouraging them to be more environmentally friendly instead of relying on regulations
to mandate less pollution and better stewardship of the land. Environmentalists say that leaves too much to chance and the potential cost to the planet is too dear.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Tighter Regs on Future Ge Foods?

A recent study from a group of scientists suggests the government should keep a closer eye on genetically modified foods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:

Transcript

A recent study from a group of scientists suggests the government
should keep a closer eye on genetically modified foods. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:


The study is from the National Academy of Sciences. Authors found
there’s nothing inherently hazardous about the way foods are
genetically altered today.


Tim Zacharewski is with Michigan State University. He’s one of the
scientists who helped write the report. He says the report is a
response to points raised in the ongoing debate over genetically
modified foods…


“There’s growing concern within the consumer market, as well as with
trading partners, that these products may actually not be safe. At
this time there’s no evidence to support that.”


But Zacherewski says the study also notes there is a potential that
future products could be unsafe… especially as newer technology
allows more and more types of food to be altered. And the study’s
authors say that the government should focus its regulations on those
newer technologies.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tom Weber.

Related Links

Usda Withdraws Organics Law “Clarification”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has withdrawn a “guidance statement” regarding organic food production. Some feared the directive was an attempt by the government to relax standards for organic foods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has withdrawn a “guidance statement” regarding
organic food production. Some feared the directive was an attempt by the government to
relax standards for organic foods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner
reports:


Critics said the USDA’s “guidance statement” was actually a new policy that could
lead to more synthetic pesticides being used on organic farms. But USDA officials said
the statement only clarified an existing law, and was issued in response to questions from
people who certify organic operations.


The department has now withdrawn those new statements. Andrea Caroe is on the National Organics Standards Board. She says confusion over the issue raises some new questions.


“Perhaps the regulation is not suiting the community the way it should and that we
should look at the process to evaluate how we could improve the regulation or the law.”


Agriculture officials say they’ll work with the Organics Standards Board to find a way to
address producers’ concerns.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

“Canned” Hunting Challenged

  • Some Great Lakes states are considering a ban on hunting fenced-in animals. Many of these hunting reserves stock their land with popular game such as elk. (Photo courtesy of the USFWS)

An animal rights group wants to ban so-called “canned hunts” in which animals are hunted in fenced-in areas. In one state… a proposed law might accomplish that… but critics say it goes too far. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Johnson reports:

Transcript

An animal rights group wants to ban so-called “canned hunts” in which animals are
hunted in fenced-in areas. In one state, a proposed law might accomplish that but
critics say it goes too far. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Johnson
reports:


(sound of truck driving over gravel roads)


At the bottom of steep hills covered by a tall canopy of trees, herds of elk gather
around feed troughs on the Pea Ridge Elk Ranch. In the distance, others forage over
dry winter grass in a clearing. Most glance up when the truck driven by ranch
manager Doug Pennock idles by. Pennock’s voice, along with the crackling of his tires
over chunks of gravel, stand out in an area that’s otherwise serene.


Pennock manages about 300 elk on this ranch 80 miles north of St. Louis. Some are
sent out west to rejuvenate elk populations. Others are slaughtered for meat. And each
year, about 10 to 15 are moved from this pasture to an adjacent deer and elk
preserve where they’re killed by hunters. An eight-foot tall fence surrounds that
300-acre preserve. Pennock says that although the animals are confined, their
environment is about as close to wilderness as you can get.


“We’ve had a lot of customers through who have hunted in different settings…
and certainly feel like ours is as challenging as any other.”


But under legislation being proposed in Illinois… preserves like Pennock’s
would be off limits to hunters. That’s because critics say there’s no sport in a
confined hunt… and that in some cases it’s essentially like shooting fish in a barrel.


The measure’s sponsor… Chicago Democratic Senator John Cullerton… says the
hunts also go after animals that are tame.


“What you see is that this is really not hunting. I mean this is these small relatively
confined areas for animals that have been raised by human beings.”


Cullerton’s proposal applies not only to elk but also to animals such as lions or
bears. Don Rolla is the Executive Director for the Illinois Humane Political
Action Committee. He says confined, or canned, hunts of exotic animals are a growing
problem in other Midwest states… including Indiana and Michigan.


But Rollah says eleven states, including Wisconsin and Minnesota, have already
banned confined hunts. He says that could mean the people who used to hunt there
will now come to Illinois for canned hunts. Rolla says that makes it all the more
important for Illinois to pass its own ban. He says everyone, even hunters, should
support this measure.


“It’s not an anti-hunting bill. It’s a bill that promotes ethics and takes a step
toward solving a problem that Illinois is going to have to deal with very shortly
if they’re going to continue to have a viable hunting activity in the
state.”


It’s difficult to determine which animals ought to be protected under a ban on canned
hunting. Rolla says he’d like it to cover all wildlife. But deer hunting is allowed on
about 500 confined hunting operations in Illinois alone. It’s unlikely that a ban on that
many game farms will pass in the state.


As it’s proposed right now, the measure would protect exotic species. but that means
as it’s written, you couldn’t slaughter livestock raised in a confined area. Tim
Schweizer is with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.


“Livestock certainly of some kinds… swine and cattle… are not animals that were
indigenous to Illinois. They were imported here many, many years ago. so they might fall
inappropriately under the definition as it was originally outlined in this bill.”


Other species further complicate the proposal. The elk on Doug Pennock’s ranch,
for example, are no longer found in the wild in Illinois… although they were at one
time indigenous. Also, because elk are considered livestock in Illinois, Pennock can
technically let paying hunters shoot them whenever… and wherever they want.


Pennock says his business never uses that freedom… voluntarily enforcing hunting
rules similar to Illinois deer hunting laws. And he says the fences around his property
serve only to help him manage an effective herd.


“I think that most folks like myself that come from a hunting background obviously want
everything to be as close to what we would term fair chase as possible.”


The question for lawmakers will be whether *close* to a fair chase is good enough.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Shawn Johnson.

Forest Plan Hits a Snag

In the early 1800’s, the forests of the upper Great Lakes were dominated by enormous white pines. By the close of the century, most of these white pine forests had been cleared by aggressive loggers with little or no experience in forest management. Other species of trees like aspen began to flourish in the spaces where the white pines once grew, and the forests of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota were changed forever. Now, some environmental groups would like to see the forests returned to their natural state, and one group is taking the issue to court. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Shafer Powell has this report:

Transcript

In the early 1800’s, the forests of the upper Great Lakes were dominated by enormous white pines. By the close of the century, most of these white pine forests had been cleared by aggressive loggers with little or no experience in forest management. Other species of trees like aspen began to flourish in the spaces where the white pines once grew, and the forests of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota were changed forever. Now, some environmental groups would like to see the forests returned to their natural state… and one group is taking the issue to court. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Shafer Powell has this report:

(Natural sound: walking through snow)

This patch
of land in Michigan’s Huron-Manistee National Forest was clear-cut last year. That means all the aspen trees were cut down, fed into a chipper, and hauled away to make particleboard and paper. All that was left was a wide-open field. A dense stubble of new growth is already emerging from the snow, though — a forest recreating itself. But here’s what bothers Marv Roberson, a forest policy specialist for the Sierra Club:
Nearly all of the new trees are aspens…

“You can see coming up, aspen that’s most of it less than a year old, some of it’s three feet tall already, and since it comes from root suckers, what it’s done is it’s gotten a head start on all the competition, so next summer when all these little trees have their leaves out, the floor of what used to be a forest and will be again, will have shade on it and so a lot of the smaller trees that want to come up from seeds that didn’t get a chance this summer won’t be able to.”

Aspens are known as
a “pioneer species.” Whenever there’s a major disturbance — a fire, a tornado, or clear-cut — aspens recover quickly. And they take over, squeezing out any other species that might try to grow there. Roberson says he doesn’t believe that would happen nearly as often if the forests weren’t clear-cut. He says the aspens would eventually grow old, die and fall down. And then, in the absence of a major disturbance, the white pines would thrive again.

It’s enough of an issue that the Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit against the United States Forest Service. The group is asking that the Forest Service do a study to analyze the long-term effects of clear-cutting aspen on federal land. In the meantime, they’re asking for a moratorium on aspen logging in certain parts of the national forests…

“The reason for our lawsuit is not to stop the harvesting of aspen. The reason for the lawsuit is to get the forest service to do an analysis of what the effects are. We’re right now going through the biggest forest experiment in North American history. We’re altering the kinds of forests that we have and we don’t know what the long term results are.”

The lawsuit has suddenly raised the stakes in what has been an on going discussion about the future of the national forests. Every ten to fifteen years, the Forest Service creates a new management plan for each National Forest in the Great Lakes region. The discussion often involves representatives from environmental organizations, wildlife preservation groups and timber companies. But it rarely ends up in court. Forest
Service officials are not allowed to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. But Regional Planner Sam Emmons says any decisions on forest planning involve a lot of thought, foresight and input from the public…

“The Forest Service is looking for a diversity of timber species and diversity of wildlife habitats and understands that whatever transitions that are made have some effect on the local sawmills and pulp mills and the folks who live up in the North Woods.”

The forests are an important part of life in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. The federal government estimates that logging and forest-related activities annually contribute nearly 30 billion dollars to the economies of just those three states. For many of those who live in the region, logging is what pays the bills. Jim Schmierer of Michigan Technological University’s Forestry Program says residents in the Upper Great Lakes forests approach issues about the forests with a blend of intelligence, experience and passion…

“Maybe grandpa was a logger or they’ve been managing a family woodlot for fifty years and so there’s a real strong connection to the land in a lot of cases up here with people who that are very familiar with forest practices, so it’s kinda unique, a much different situation than some in the west, so definitely an interesting dynamic here.”

For that reason, the Sierra Club lawsuit has created some resentment among those who make their living from logging aspen. John Lamy is President of the Timber Producers Association of Michigan and Wisconsin. He says the Forest Service’s management plans involve a lot of public input and compromise. He says he doesn’t understand why the Sierra Club had to get the courts involved…

“I just feel that since everybody had a chance to participate in the plan and develop the plan and that plan has been approved that we should allow that process to go forward and the Sierra Club is choosing to go through the courts to change a major part of that plan.”

Marv Roberson of the Sierra Club says his group has been trying to work within the system. But he says the Forest Service isn’t getting the message. So the lawsuit is simply a last resort. In the end, the Sierra Club may be getting its way even without the lawsuit. Since the 1960’s the aspen population in the upper Great Lakes has actually declined. Roberson acknowledges this and offers this analogy: If a patient’s temperature goes from one hundred five degrees to one hundred three degrees, he might be getting better. But he’s still sick.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Matt Shafer Powell.

Marketing “Character Wood”

In an effort that could be replicated across the region, one county in Minnesota is trying to encourage growth of hardwood forests. They think sawmills and related enterprises that use hardwoods will create good long-term jobs. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill has more:

Transcript

In an effort that could be replicated across the region, one county in Minnesota is trying to encourage growth of hardwood forests. They think sawmills and related enterprises that use hardwoods will create good long-term jobs. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Forests throughout the Great Lakes are economic powerhouses. In Minnesota alone, the timber industry contributes nearly 8 billion dollars to the economy. Pulp and paper mills dominate the industry in Minnesota. They cut a lot of aspen to produce paper and chipboard. Three fourths of the wood cut in the state goes to these mills. Most of them are owned by big, multi-national companies. Sawmills are much smaller, and they’re usually locally owned. They use a variety of wood, including pine and spruce, maple and oak, to produce paneling, flooring, and trim.

(Car doors slam)

Aitkin County foresters are visiting a logging
site about 50 miles west of Duluth. Most of these trees are about 80 years
old. There’s sugar maple, basswood, and red oak. Such forests provide
prime habitat for a broad range of species. Forester Mark Jacobs says it’s
time to cut some of the trees down, to give others a chance to grow
faster. He wants to do it as much like nature as possible.

“The type of disturbance that would happen in here, since it’s kind of protected from fire, would be individual trees falling. Through mortality or if a windstorm would go through, a small group of trees may fall down in the natural cycle.”

Foresters imitate nature by choosing mainly smaller, diseased or mis-shapen trees to be cut. Joe Jewett has the logging contract to thin the woods. He examines each log to figure out how it can best be marketed.

“The higher grade lumber is around the outside of the log and then here this is the heart, this is the sapwood, and the higher grade is out here.”

The small trees have lots of branches, so the wood will have a lot of knots. So it’s hard to sell, because most people want clear-grained wood.

“Howdy, how’s it going?”

Dan Haugen is visiting Jewett to see if he can help sell the wood Jewett has cut. Haugen is a middleman. He buys wood from loggers and sells it to lumber yards. He’s trying to create a demand for wood with knots and color variations. Haugen calls it “character wood.”

“If you go into most homes, the millwork, the cabinets and the flooring, most of it’s clear. And you can look around in the forest and see all these limbs, and that’s just not how God makes these trees. And so we really need to find some markets for character grades of forest products.”

(Saw, sfx from processor)

Aitkin Hardwoods buys some of Haugen’s wood. The small factory is filled with the smell of freshly cut boards. Stacks of lumber reach to the ceiling. The oak, maple, ash, and aspen boards will become paneling, flooring, and trim. Manager Rich Peterson says he’s found a market for character grade lumber. He says people building lake cabins in the area want informal-looking wood to build their casual second homes. They find clear wood too boring.

“They haven’t seen any mineral streak, there are
no knots, and all of those things today are considered beautiful.”

Peterson employs four workers and sells about 40 semi-loads of lumber each year. He’s expecting his business to grow. He says Aitkin County’s long-term approach to forest management will eventually produce more, and better quality lumber. Some day, he hopes furniture could be produced here. That would bring more jobs, and better profits than paneling and flooring.

Hardwood manufacturing in Aitkin County is growing slowly. The raw materials are growing slowly in the woods, and entrepreneurs like Rich Peterson are slowly building markets. It’s a different scale from the pulp mills that employ hundreds of people and cut down thousands of acres of trees every year. And that’s fine with Aitkin County’s land department. Forester Mark Jacobs says the local economy will still benefit from a growing hardwood industry –slowly but surely.

“Some smaller sawmills expanding, maybe a kiln-drying facility, maybe some secondary manufacturing, and in total it could be several hundred employees.”

And Jacobs says in the meantime, people who live in the county, and people who have cabins here, enjoy the hardwood forests.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.