“Responsible forestry plays a large part in New Hampshire’s long and proud tradition of environmental stewardship,” Gov. Chris Sununu said in a statement. “As proposed, the plan would have detrimental impact on the traditional forest use, conservation of wildlife habitat and take a serious economic toll on the North Country.

“In rejecting this plan, New Hampshire is protecting our treasured outdoors and its use for future generations,” he said.

North Carolina-based Aurora Sustainable Lands LLC, wants to “extract maximum value from the forest without maintaining the promise of economic benefit to the community,” said Natural & Cultural Resources Commissioner Sarah Stewart.

Carbon credits are sold to factories, corporations and power plants that exceed the carbon dioxide emissions standards set in the states in which they operate.

With a focus on carbon credits, “the fee owner is the sole benefactor,” Stewart said. “Extracting value for itself is very different from maintaining economic opportunity for the greater community.”

The state purchased the conservation easement in 2002 with an agreement timber harvesting would continue at levels experienced throughout the property’s history.

The state remains open to negotiations on adjustments to Aurora’s plan that would preserve the parcel as a sustainable working forest and bulwark of the local economy, while enabling Aurora to profit from carbon credit sales.

Fear for wildlife

Scott Mason, executive director of New Hampshire Fish and Game, approved of some features of Aurora’s plan, including creating wildlife travel corridors and sections for legacy trees. But he argued that Aurora’s forest goals — 20% seedlings and saplings, 25% saw timber and 55% pole timber — don’t support long-term forest health and preservation.

The number of acres allotted for new growth and very young trees needs to more than double, and the amount reserved for saw timber also has to increase, Mason said in a letter to State Forester Patrick Hackley.

In effect, Aurora’s focus maximizes older growth by slowing clearcutting and harvest of the oldest, tallest trees to the detriment of the new growth that regenerates a forest and preserves a more balanced, multi-age mix.

“This will certainly have implications for area wildlife,” Mason stated. Loss of aspen and birch trees, covering 2% of the forest, would reduce habitat for fowl, beaver and other species.

“They provide unique food, cover and shelter that is increasingly becoming rare” and are “the preferred habitat for ruffed grouse, woodcock, Nashville warbler, beaver and other wildlife.Once birch and aspen are gone, they are very difficult to get back.”

He said few or no clearcuts during Aurora’s 10-year plan will substantially reduce this habitat, and existing stands are “on the brink of aging out.” He said the company’s simplified wildlife estimates won’t give a clear picture of what’s going on.

Executive Councilor Joe Kenney, whose District 1 includes the North Country, applauded the state’s decision to send Aurora back to the drawing board. He said companies have purchased large parcels in New Hampshire “with the intent of tying up land for decades” to profit from the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon in existing trees.

Call for moderation

“This is a new economy and a new threat” to wood production, “including the way we manage our land for wildlife and the way we support our timber economy,” Kenney said.

“It was always understood that this was going to be a working forest that people could also recreate and enjoy within the (bounds of) the conservation agreement,” he said. “New Hampshire’s timber industry and timberland owners have always been good stewards of the land.”

Kenney said he is not opposed to carbon tax offset programs, but they should occur in moderation, preserve forest health and honor long-term timber harvest goals. “It has to be reasonable and manageable and can’t impede our forest industry economy.”

“The overarching concern shared by all state agencies involved in this review was that the plan’s “clear intent to significantly reduce timber harvest and forest management activities” is inconsistent with the terms, purpose and intent of the easement, the Natural and Cultural Resource’s Stewart and State Forester Hackley wrote in explanation of the state’s decision.

The easement states, “These lands will remain as a large block of largely undeveloped, productive/working forest while continuing their substantial contribution to the local and regional culture and economy. Public access for recreation will be assured as will the conservation of ecologically sensitive resources and places.”

Blake Stansell, president of Aurora Sustainable Lands, said in a statement that the company is reviewing the state’s specific comments and that Aurora shares the state’s goal of supporting “local timber harvesting and forest products, wildlife and related businesses” as the forest “has for more than a decade.”

”We look forward to the next step in the process, which includes additional meetings with DNCR and NH Fish & Game,” Stansell wrote.