CONTRA COSTA TIMES (California) 05 May 06 Land set aside for whipsnake means $500M lost in development opportunity - Study suggests preserving snake's habitat will have minimal effect on local economy (Mike Taugher)
Photo: The land set aside to protect the Alameda whipsnake means an estimated $500 millon lost to real estate developers, according to a draft economic analysis. (Chris Brown/USGS)
Habitat protection for a rare East Bay snake will cost the construction industry more than $500 million over the next 20 years, but that will have almost no effect on the regional economy, according to an economic analysis released Thursday.
The analysis says that 780 fewer homes -- out of the 20,000 houses projected to be built -- will be constructed as a result of protection for Alameda whipsnakes around the edges of Pleasanton, Hayward, Dublin, Concord, Lafayette, Blackhawk and Martinez, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The economic losses are a combination of the cost to the industry of not building houses and the cost of complying with critical habitat rules, including the requirement to offset habitat damage by preserving land elsewhere.
The draft economic analysis was prepared as federal regulators consider whether to finalize critical habitat designations for the Alameda whipsnake, a smoky gray racer with yellow stripes that can grow to 4 feet long.
The nonpoisonous snake eats mostly lizards and elevates its head when hunting. It lives in the East Bay's chaparral, oak woodlands and streamside zones. Development of snake habitat is the major threat to their survival.
In releasing the draft economic analysis, the Fish and Wildlife Service also reopened a public comment period through June 5 on its proposal to designate critical habitat. The service plans to finalize the critical habitat designation by October.
The proposal would place an added layer of regulation on more than 200,000 acres in the East Bay, including nearly 25 percent of Contra Costa County and 14.5 percent of Alameda County. Still, the proposed protected area is only half of what was designated in 2000 before it was overturned as the result of a lawsuit brought by developers.
A lawyer for the Homebuilders of Northern California, an industry group, said the estimated loss of $500 million, or about $47 million a year, was likely too low because it fails to include the high cost of lawsuits or the uncertainty that critical habitat designations bring.
The lawyer, Paul Campos, added that his group believes critical habitat designations are ineffective and should not be used in areas determined by local governments to be suitable for building.
"It's this hold-out group of extreme environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity that refuse to compromise at all," Campos said. "Ultimately, they want the entire state designated as critical habitat."
Jeff Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity, countered that the economic impact estimate was likely too high because it did not count the advantages of protecting habitat, including the recreational benefits of open space and the higher real estate values that come with proximity to undeveloped land.
"They're claiming wildly inflated cost estimates (for protecting snake habitat) and saying we can't monetize the benefits," Miller said.
The estimate in the analysis assumes that local governments do not compensate for housing losses. If, for example, planners approve denser housing in other areas to compensate for the loss of houses in the critical habitat areas, the economic impact would be cut by more than half, the report says.
Critical habitat is among the most controversial provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Since the Clinton administration, federal officials have said the minimal protections added for threatened and endangered species are not worth the trouble caused by controversy, litigation and paperwork. The species still has to be protected with or without the designation.
"Despite all the controversy and concern it whips up, our perspective is it doesn't do that much for the species on the ground," said Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Jim Nickles.
By designating critical habitat, though, land-use planners have a clear map of where added environmental protections are required even if the endangered species is not in the immediate area of a proposed development or other project.
Last month, the Fish and Wildlife Service designated 450,000 acres statewide as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. That was drastically lower than the 4 million acres designated in 2001 before that rule was overturned in the courts.
Land set aside for whipsnake means $500M lost