Feds say it would cost less to protect frogs

SACRAMENTO
October 7, 2009 11:15am

The economic impact of protecting the California habitat of the red-legged frog is less than had been calculated, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says Wednesday.

The present value incremental costs directly related to a critical habitat designation could range from $183 million to $566 million over a 20-year period, about 25 percent less than an earlier estimate of up to $767 million.

The new report strips out what some saw as political bias in the earlier estimates prepared for the George W. Bush administration.

"The 2008 proposal was developed by Service biologists without using the previous final designation as a base from which to make changes due to the involvement of Department of Interior personnel 'which may have inappropriately influenced the extent and locations of critical habitat,'" the new report says.

The Fish and Wildlife analysis covers 1.8 million acres that are proposed to be designated critical habitat for the threatened California red-legged frog.

Release of the analysis opens a new 30-day comment period on the entire critical habitat proposal and the economic assessment.

The new analysis was prepared by Industrial Economics Inc. of Cambridge, Mass.

Ninety percent of the cost in the new analysis occurs in new development, according to the revised analysis, although development is projected to occur on just 0.5 percent (7,099 acres) of the privately owned 1.3 million acres in the proposed critical habitat. The analysis calculates that the largest impacts will occur in San Luis Obispo, Alameda, San Mateo, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties, rather than in the Central Valley.

The revised analysis reflects improved data and revised assumptions, the government says. For example, the earlier analysis assumed a significant cost due to compliance costs associated with the stateÕs California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a result of the federal critical habitat designation. In the new draft CEQA costs have virtually been eliminated.

Nearly all of the additional cost is projected to be due to additional time needed to complete consultations with the agencies, estimated to be nine months, plus two years to purchase additional land to offset development damage to the species. The land acquisition process has a significantly higher cost than the April analysis, based on a projection of more time to acquire and protect mitigation land.

The revised economic analysis is based on a 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to designate critical habitat in 28 California counties: Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Riverside, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Ventura and Yuba.

The economic analysis finds there would be virtually no cost to ranchers from designating critical habitat because the proposal would maintain a so-called "4(d) rule" for compatible ranching operations. The rule gives ranchers on whose land many of the frogs occur protection from violating the ESA if they continue routine ranching operations.