Not necessary, because the author never compares wetlands development to development of other places. Even if another kind of development has endangered more species than wetlands development has, the Commission can still advocate for certain measures to be taken with wetlands development and can still predict the effects of those measures.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if the species native to natural wetland habitats will NOT survive in the new replacement wetlands — then it’s wrong to conclude that development would “pose no threat to the species that inhabit wetlands.”

Not necessary, because the argument concerns the Commission’s own country. The Commission does not recommend anything about what should be done in other countries.

Not necessary, because even if past regulation has not protected wildlife, that doesn’t relate to the potential impact of the specific regulation proposed by the Commission.

Not necessary, because whether the species that inhabit the wetlands are the “most” severely threatened or not, the author can still believe they’d be protected by replacement wetlands.