Maryalice Fischer

Is the purpose of this proposed bill to encourage unfettered development in the state despite severe environmental impacts? That is not the New Hampshire that people know and love precisely because of its natural beauty and biodiversity - both of which deserve the highest level of protection. This bill seems to make it virtually impossible to protect threatened and endangered species in the state. Many wildlife species move around and may or may not be able to be observed present on any given day. Many plant species flower only occasionally making identification of the species impossible unless it is observed at the exact time it is flowering. However, the the likelihood of a species presence can be based on existing state records, and the knowledge of local experts, the habitat conditions and species habitat needs. The idea of Section III, stating "Land use applications shall not require new biodiversity searches as a precondition of application or as a condition of subsequent approval." implies that no development or land use change, no matter how large or impactful would be subject to any review regarding threatened and endangered species. This would mean that no threatened or endangered species or its habitat that may be present would ever be protected. It also may be in conflict with NH RSA 212-A and Regulation Fis 1000, as well as with the permitting requirements of RSA 482-A, RSA 485-A and RSA 236. Furthermore, this bill would impose huge burdens on NH Fish and Game and NH DES, even if the bill produced a viable approach - which it does not. The current processes for site review, species investigations, and land protections works just fine - there is no need to remove those protections. I urge you to vote against advancing this proposed bill.