Committee weighs timelines and a mitigation fund for threatened and endangered species reviews tied to permits

Senator Tim Lang opened the SB 109 hearing saying the bill would establish firm timelines for agency reviews of alteration of terrain (AOT) permits and create a threatened and endangered species compensatory mitigation fund to receive mitigation fees tied to AOT permit conditions.

Why it matters: witnesses described permit timelines as a bottleneck for housing and development projects. Developers and municipal representatives urged clearer deadlines to reduce project delays; New Hampshire Fish and Game and the Department of Environmental Services (DES) urged careful drafting to protect threatened and endangered (T&E) species and to avoid unintended legal exposure for other agencies.

Fish and Game concerns: - Stephanie Simic, executive director of New Hampshire Fish and Game, and Dan Bergeron, wildlife division chief, praised improvements the agency has made since adopting new rules in 2022 but said the bill as drafted would alter their statutory authority in ways that could let other agencies make determinations affecting T&E species. Bergeron said the bill adds language that could allow "other departments or agency [to] determine" what is "reasonable and prudent," transferring decision authority that Fish and Game currently holds. He warned that removing or weakening Fish and Game’s role could expose the state to litigation and erode protections for species and habitat. - Process and timelines: Fish and Game relies on an administrative rule framework (rules referenced in testimony as 10‑02 through 10‑06) that includes a stop‑the‑clock mechanism while the agency waits for applicants to provide missing information. Bergeron told the committee that roughly 82% of their reviews were completed within a 60‑day window from 2022–2024; the projects that exceeded that time frame most often did so because the agency was waiting for additional information from applicants. - Mitigation fund and rulemaking: Fish and Game noted the threatened and endangered species compensatory mitigation fund already exists and has received money. The bill would require Fish and Game to adopt rules that define when mitigation payments are required and how they are calculated; the agency said those calculations are species‑ and site‑specific and will require stakeholder input and time to develop.

DES and other agency perspective: - Adam Crapo, assistant commissioner at DES, told the committee DES supports the bill’s intent to improve permitting timelines and noted that DES already requires applicants to run a natural‑heritage database check and to consult with Fish and Game when there is a hit. DES statistics cited in testimony: DES handles roughly 200–250 AOT permits per year and, in recent years, about 80 of those required time extensions beyond the agency’s combined review clock (50 days to request more information, then 30 days after additional material is submitted). DES supports clarifying timelines but stressed coordination with Fish and Game to avoid contradictions between statutory language and existing rule‑based stop‑the‑clock practices.

Development community and conservation testimony: - Developers, resorts and engineering firms argued that predictable, enforceable timelines and clearer thresholds are necessary to reduce project delays that can terminate financing or increase costs. Witnesses said small projects can be caught by current thresholds and that predictability is more important than any single numerical threshold. - Conservation groups (New Hampshire Audubon, Nature Conservancy) asked for caution. Audubon urged the committee not to weaken existing protections and recommended referring the text back for further negotiation; the Nature Conservancy asked that any rulemaking deadlines allow enough time for Fish and Game to craft species‑specific mitigation rules (suggesting an extension into 2026 if the bill passes).

Key technical points and numbers raised in testimony: - Fish and Game rules cited: administrative rules around endangered species (testimony referenced rules numbered 10‑02 to 10‑06).