I'm definitely pro development. But on this Rindner got it exactly right. He has left it to the legislature to determine what risk to fish is acceptable, how long and what it will take to restore fish habitat, and define unacceptable substantial damage. Rindner is correct on this ruling. Bringing this kind of clarity and focus is very important to development and resource extraction in Alaska. Not that the DNR has not done good so far or at times sacrificing a small fish resource for a much more valuable resource is prudent (Red Dog for example where a small stream was sacrificed for the much more valuable lead zinc) With the Rindner decision in place the Legislature will have to simplify a vague policy on development.