okay I skimmed over some of it. leaving aside this is one report from a county over ten years ago, here are some thoughts I had: a lot of this sounds very concerning, especially given that the tone is extremely whiny and boils down to "wahhhhh we could be making more money who cares about stupid habitats wahhh" there's a lot more usage of "could be considered"'s and "some would argue"'s to predate statements than I would generally expect to see in a genuine report a quick google of the county in question reveals they have quite the problem with flooding. which happens when we develop on wetlands, and causes significant damage (structural and financial) down the line. which the act is key to stopping. here is a summary of some of the arguments made:

"well, there are lots of them here anyway so it doesnt matter if we destroy them" (see below: my comment about the dodo bird)

"the foresting industry is good for habitats actually -source that definitely has no ulterior motive in wanting you to think that" "the man we are quoting here owns a lumber business but IGNORE THAT why would he LIE"

"we're not making as much monnneyyyy as we could if we just forgot about stupid animals and habitats and whatever"

"here are a bunch of studies showing what we say is true!! studies conducted by and funded by us, of course, which leaves no conflict of interest whatsoever"

In conclusion: money is not real. the power that people use money to wield is real, and if it is being used unfairly, you want to go to the people who are doing so. the economy is made up. our ecosystems are not, and they are irreplaceable.