Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for 22 Species in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam

Prutehi Guåhan, a 501c3 organization, opposes the designation of critical habitat because it can lead to the destruction of sacred and culturally significant lands for military use. They request an extension of the commenting period to ensure residents understand the potential impacts on Indigenous practices and economic development.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit environmental organization, strongly supports the finalization of the proposed critical habitat designation for 22 species in the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. They urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize the rule quickly without reducing the scope of the proposed areas, specifically opposing certain exclusions and requesting more robust analysis of climate change threats.

Dr. Else Demeulenaere, an Associate Director at the University of Guam's Center for Island Sustainability, supports the proposed critical habitat designation but requests more public outreach, a comment period extension, and clarification on how the designation complements existing conservation plans and management on private and military lands. She also recommends evaluating additional coastal limestone forest habitats for inclusion in the final rule.

A biologist and board member of a Marianas conservation non-profit supports the proposed critical habitat designation but urges the USFWS to improve community outreach and provide clearer maps showing land ownership. The commenter also suggests expanding the designated areas to include specific additional species and locations where they believe critical habitats are currently missing.

Sabina Flores Perez, a Senator from Guam, supports the designation of critical habitat for 22 species but emphasizes the need for a holistic approach that addresses cumulative threats like climate change and military activity. She recommends integrating the designation into local land-use plans, prioritizing intact forests, and collaborating with local agencies to manage invasive species and wildfires.

Henry B. Lacey, an individual, supports the proposed designation of critical habitat for 22 species in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands but argues that the rule needs to be strengthened. He requests more specific scientific findings, clearer boundary justifications, and more transparent evidence regarding the physical and biological features essential for species recovery.

Mike Gawel, a wildlife ecology researcher with extensive experience in the Pacific Islands, supports the designation of critical habitats but criticizes the Fish and Wildlife Service's procedural approach. He argues that the agency failed to provide adequate time for public review, lacked sufficient coordination with the Department of War, and did not meaningfully engage with local and traditional knowledge holders.

TerryAnn Towers Saint Amand supports the proposed critical habitat designation for the 22 species but urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure protections are scientifically robust and climate-resilient. The commenter specifically calls for high burdens of proof regarding the exclusion of Department of Defense lands and emphasizes the need for sustained invasive species management and collaboration with Indigenous communities.

Meryl Pinque expresses strong support for the proposed critical habitat designation for 22 species in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The commenter urges the Fish and Wildlife Service to include all military lands within the designation, arguing that previous exclusions based on self-management plans have failed to protect these endangered species.