Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wide opposition at hearing as bill would require state review of forest carbon projects and management plans
Summary
HB1440FN would require land enrolled in forest carbon sequestration programs to submit management plans to Forests & Lands and Fish & Game for review. Sponsors framed it as protecting wildlife and reducing fire risk; timberland owners, forest managers, conservation groups and industry groups strongly opposed the bill as an unwarranted property‑rights and regulatory expansion and urged the committee to await the ongoing study commission.
Representative Willlette opened the hearing saying HB1440FN would require management plans for lands enrolled in private forest carbon projects be filed with New Hampshire Division of Forests & Lands and Fish & Game, citing concerns about wildlife, fire risk and public interest in forestry outcomes.
The hearing drew a large and sustained chorus of opposition. Small private owners and long‑time tree farmers (Tom and Jenny Christensen; Tom Thompson) said current use plans, tree‑farm certification and licensed foresters already secure wildlife and multiple‑use management and argued the bill would strip property owners’ decision authority and add time and cost. Large timberland firms (Weyerhaeuser) and the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association warned the bill would create a de facto forest‑practices act, disrupt markets and timber supply, and undermine the negotiated moratorium and study commission established last year (HB123). Conservation groups (Forest Society, Nature Conservancy) explained they had enrolled some acreage in carbon projects to finance management that keeps land as forest, and urged the committee to allow the study commission to complete work before imposing new mandates.
Fish & Game told the committee it supported maintaining wildlife but expressed operational concerns about a requirement that agency staff attend or otherwise participate in local meetings; the department asked the bill be narrowed to exclude state‑managed lands and to avoid open‑ended staffing obligations. The committee ultimately voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on HB1440FN after discussion.
