Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Endangered Species topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor narrows HB16003, critics warn changes could weaken endangered‑species protections
Summary
Representative Dvito told the Resources Committee his sponsor amendment to HB16003 would require agencies to rely on current, verifiable, location‑specific evidence before imposing land‑use restrictions. Conservation groups and New Hampshire Fish & Game said the bill, as introduced, risked stripping protections; landowners and timber groups described costly project delays caused by legacy records.
Representative Dvito opened the hearing on HB16003 by saying the bill responds to constituent complaints about permanent land‑use restrictions imposed on properties based on species records that are “not current, not site specific, and in many cases not verifiable.” He told the committee he offered a sponsor amendment to narrow the bill and remove elements that drove a previously published fiscal note above $1 million, emphasizing the goal was fairness and “ensuring that when endangered species are cited to restrict land use, the evidence relied upon is lawfully obtained and tied to the specific location in question.”
Conservationists and agency staff pushed back. Nissa Marks, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who testified in opposition, told the committee the bill “may sound rational, but in practice it is unimplementable and would functionally end most protection for endangered species in New Hampshire.” Marks and New Hampshire Fish & Game representatives emphasized detecting many listed species is difficult even when they are present, requiring repeated, costly surveys and specialized methods; they said restricting the records an agency may use would remove the data needed to avoid, minimize or mitigate harm.
State Fish and Game officials explained current practice: records used in the department’s searchable databases are reviewed for quality before inclusion, and the department also conducts targeted surveys where necessary. Mike Marshand, supervisor of the non‑game and endangered wildlife program, warned the bill could “nearly eliminate all the records used in that database for searches,” forcing applicants and agencies into more costly and time‑consuming surveys and potentially increasing harm to species.
Landowner and industry witnesses described local consequences. Mary Murphy and other private property owners gave examples of projects delayed for months after old records surfaced; one homeowner said the delay added almost $20,000 to a farm structure because a historical turtle sighting held up construction. Jason Stock of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association said landowners want accurate data and courtesy in how data are collected, but said old records can be out of date and pose practical problems.
Agencies and several members suggested a middle path. DEES (the Department of Environmental Services) and the Natural Heritage Bureau told the committee they are already working on improved procedures, data‑sharing agreements, web tools and rulemaking under the recent program transfer enacted by HB2; they recommended rulemaking and procedural fixes rather than statutory restrictions that could strip agencies’ ability to protect species.
The committee took testimony and asked for amendments; Representative Dvito said he expected the measure to be reworked in subcommittee to balance landowner fairness with workable conservation checks. No final vote was taken at the hearing.
Ending: The committee left HB16003 for further drafting and subcommittee work. Sponsors and agencies agreed to continue negotiations on language that would preserve verifiable, site‑specific evidence requirements without creating unworkable barriers to protecting listed species.
