DES proposes to centralize wildlife reviews, raise permit fees and narrow timelines in HB 1/HB 2 package

Department of Environmental Services officials told the House Finance Division I committee that a package of changes in House Bill 1 and House Bill 2 would move most wildlife and natural‑heritage review work into DES, raise several permit fees and create faster permitting clocks and a two‑tiered review path for some projects.

"Sections 2 through 5... are going to be realigning some of the state agencies to make permitting a little bit quicker. They have a 60 day clock that they want to try to get to, and this is one of the ways that they're attempting to do that," Assistant Commissioner Adam Crapo said as he introduced the proposal on behalf of DES.

Why it matters: DES said centralizing the Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) reviews and the Fish & Game desktop reviews into DES would let applicants get a single environmental review instead of seeking separate letters and recommendations from multiple agencies. DES also told lawmakers it needs stable funding to staff the unit that would handle the incoming workload; the department proposed increasing wetlands and other permit fees and creating a permit‑by‑notification (PBN) option for smaller alteration‑of‑terrain projects so fees would cover the added positions.

What DES described - Positions: The department said HB 1 and HB 2, as proposed, would move positions now housed at New Hampshire Fish and Game and at the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) into DES. During the hearing DES staff said the department requested a technical correction that would move three (3) positions from Fish and Game (rather than four) and two (2) positions from DNCR, plus a new supervisor position to manage an endangered species/reviews unit.

- Function: Phil Trowbridge, who runs DES’s Land Resource Management Bureau, described the work as primarily "desktop" reviews and coordination—checking the Natural Heritage Database (NHB), advising applicants about mitigation, and incorporating recommendations into DES permits—rather than the field‑survey work done by Fish & Game or DNCR biologists.

- Timing and process: Crapo said the governor’s proposal aims for a 60‑day statutory review clock for covered DES permits; some DNCR language referenced in the packet used a 180‑day rule‑making timeframe and DES said that is a technical/administrative clarification in the draft red line.

Funding and fees DES told the committee it modeled fee changes intended to make the consolidations revenue neutral and to fund the transferred staff. The department provided a spreadsheet to the committee showing potential combinations of fee adjustments that it said could reduce general fund support by about $5.5 million over the biennium if the committee chose that path. Specific items discussed included: - Wetlands permit fees: DES described a proposed increase (DES staff said wetlands fees would rise by 50% in the packet they presented). - Alteration of terrain (AOT) fees: DES said AOT fees would also rise; the precise percent in the HB 2 draft packet was discussed as a variable (DES and the governor’s office had been negotiating the specific changes). - NHB “data check” fee: the packet raised the small data‑check fee that generates an NHB review from $25 to $50. - Permit‑by‑notification (PBN): HB 2 would create or expand PBN authority for lower‑impact alteration‑of‑terrain projects. DES told the committee the intent is to speed small projects forward while preserving robust review for larger projects; the department said the thresholds were still being finalized and that Senate Bill 110 language would be folded in as the draft is revised.

Committee concerns and DES responses Lawmakers asked about several risks and governance issues. - Will fees cover the staff and not overburden homeowners? Rep. Weiler asked whether the fee increases would cover the cost of the new staff; Crapo replied, "They... will cover the cost, of those people. Yes." Committee members pressed whether higher fees on small homeowners might drive unpermitted work; DES pointed to new contractor‑liability language in HB 2 that would increase contractor accountability if work is done improperly.

- Will DNCR and Fish & Game lose capacity beyond permitting? Rep. Ebel and others asked whether moving reviewers would degrade DNCR or Fish & Game mission capacity. DNCR Commissioner Sarah Stewart and Fish and Game Director Stephanie Simek told the committee they support the initiative but said the agencies had worked with DES to preserve capacity for non‑DES environmental reviews; Fish & Game said it expects to retain some staff for federal and non‑DES review work and that the net transfer would be smaller than the first drafts suggested.

- Practical workflow: DES, Fish & Game and DNCR described the current "soup‑to‑nuts" flow: applicants are encouraged to request a NHB check early; if the NHB returns a “hit” reviewers coordinate mitigation recommendations which DES would then fold into permit conditions. DES staff said one objective is to provide earlier high/medium/low sensitivity guidance so applicants can avoid investing heavily in sites that will be hard to permit.

Permit timing and rulemaking DES told lawmakers the statutory 60‑day review clock is the administration’s target for covered permit types; DES also described existing extension and denial processes that would remain in place if an applicant fails to provide requested information in time. The department said some rule‑making windows in the red line were conservative (e.g., 180 days) but that it expects to move quicker.

Other HB 2 items discussed in the same hearing - Overwater boathouses: DES said a legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office requires the agency to consider overwater boathouse proposals (which are sometimes more environmentally friendly than dug‑in structures). HB 2 would set guardrails — including a one‑story/height limit (structural height language in the draft) and a requirement that boathouses be for boating activity, not dwellings — to avoid large multistory structures over public waters.

- Alteration of terrain threshold clarifications: DES said it would adopt language from Senate Bill 110 to create PBN authority and to give DES rule‑making authority to define criteria (for example, proximity to Class A waters and stormwater discharge criteria) that would keep higher‑risk projects in the full review stream.

- Rivers Council and local holds: the draft removes a few statutory hold authorities (for example, a reenabling of statewide New Hampshire Rivers Council 40‑day holds) and narrows redundant local hold mechanics, which DES said are rarely used but can slow permitting.

Implementation risk and next steps DES said some of the positions are currently funded with ARPA and other temporary sources; the governor’s budget proposes shifting base funding to the water resources/fee accounts and to general funds for the first part of the next biennium. Fish & Game and DNCR are negotiating which positions stay, which move and what ongoing funding will be. DES said the package needs statutory fixes (technical redlines) and rulemaking; staff told the committee they would move faster than the 180‑day timelines shown in the red line and would coordinate with stakeholders and JL CAR.

Votes at a glance (committee actions recorded during the hearing) The committee recorded voice votes on a set of technical changes and section approvals tied to HB 2 during the hearing. Vote tallies were not provided in the transcript; the committee accepted several technical redlines on the record (procedural approvals were recorded by section number). The transcript records affirmative committee action on multiple HB 2 sections related to DES technical language and positions; details and any statutory text changes remain subject to follow‑up committee markup.

What remains uncertain - Exact fee percentages and effective dates: some percentages (wetlands 50% in DES presentation) were described; others were still to be finalized with the governor’s office and through SB 110 reconciliation. - Precise PBN thresholds and the final 60‑ vs 180‑day timelines: DES said it will mirror SB 110 technical language and proposed a 60‑day target for covered DES permit types. - Final staffing transfers and ongoing funding: DNCR and Fish & Game said they had agreed in concept but that some positions would remain with their agencies for federal or non‑DES reviews.

Ending: The committee kept the file open for additional technical corrections and said it would take up the broader fee displacement and HB 2 revisions in subsequent sessions; DES and the agencies promised more detailed fiscal and staffing breakdowns as the draft language is finalized.