Irvine Co.’s Bid for Gnatcatcher Deal Rejected

A conservation group pressing to have the California gnatcatcher declared an endangered species has rejected an Irvine Co. request to drop that effort in exchange for cooperation from major landowners in setting aside land for the threatened songbird.

Joel Reynolds, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Friday that the Los Angeles-based environmental group was privately approached by Irvine Co. officials with the proposed deal more than a week ago, but has decided to continue its campaign to have the gnatcatcher placed on state and federal endangered species lists.

“We’re not in the position to drop the petitions or defer them in any way at this stage,” Reynolds said.

Preventing the gnatcatcher from making the endangered species list is a top priority for the Irvine Co. and other major developers, who are openly fearful that such a designation will impede their ability to build on thousands of acres of prime developable land in Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties.

Environmentalists say encroaching development has already disturbed or destroyed 70% to 90% of the gnatcatcher’s habitat, a mix of grasses and shrubs called coastal sage scrub. Endangered species designation for the tiny songbird would require developers to meet a host of additional regulations before destroying any more of the scrub--a prospect that builders say injects uncertainty into their plans.

With about a third of its holdings at stake, the Irvine Co. has taken a leading role in trying to defuse what some say could be a high-pitched political battle rivaling that over the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest.

In recent weeks, the company has quietly worked behind the scenes to persuade the Wilson Administration to intervene in the controversy--an effort that paid off last month when, as part of his 14-point environmental agenda, the governor announced a “pilot project” to convene a scientific panel to determine how much of the scrub should be set aside voluntarily by developers.

Michael A. Mantell, Wilson’s undersecretary for resources, said earlier this week that he is trying to get all parties involved in the gnatcatcher controversy to sit down and talk about the pilot project. The idea of using the project to head off a political fight has been endorsed by conservation groups, such as the Nature Conservancy, as well as developers such as the Irvine Co.

Just how the Natural Resources Defense Council’s refusal to comply with the Irvine Co.’s request will affect the discussions is uncertain. Mantell could not be reached for comment Friday, but Reynolds said the conservation group is open to further discussions with the Irvine Co. or state officials.

The idea for convening a scientific panel--agreeable to environmentalists, developers and government officials--was initially proposed to Wilson’s top environmental official in an April 2 letter from Monica Florian, Irvine Co.’s vice president for strategic planning. The letter predated Wilson’s announcement of the pilot project by nearly three weeks.

Florian wrote that the company’s suggested plan was geared toward saving enough of the habitat to make “any listing of the gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub-dependent species unnecessary.”

She also said that a “condition” of gaining cooperation from major Southern California landowners for the pilot project would require postponement of state and federal petitions to list the gnatcatcher as endangered.

Reynolds said an Irvine Co. official repeated the condition in a private meeting with him April 26. The Natural Resources Defense Council co-sponsored both petitions with a bird observatory in Manomet, Mass.

“They made it clear that they felt it was necessary,” Reynolds said Friday about the request by the Irvine Co. He said the company also warned that without such a move, it would be forced to use part of its “resources to respond to or oppose the petitions.”

“Without adequate assurances that are sufficient and convince us of adequate protection for the species, we are not going to drop our petitions,” Reynolds said. “We don’t have those assurances, and our petition stands.”

An Irvine Co. spokesman declined Friday to comment on the decision by the conservation group or its role in the gnatcatcher negotiations.

“We have nothing to add beyond the (April 2) letter, which clearly states our goal,” said Larry Thomas, vice president for corporate communications.

Officials of the California Fish and Game Department on Monday are expected to recommend whether the petition for endangered-species status merits serious consideration. If so, the question will be set for public debate at the June meeting of the Fish and Game Commission, which can deny the petition or order an in-depth examination of the gnatcatcher issue, which could take up to another year.

During that examination, state law would require developers to treat the gnatcatcher as if it were already an endangered species, thus posing a potential disruption to development plans. At the end of the yearlong review--in mid-1992--the commission would then approve or deny the official endangered species designation.

Meanwhile, an emergency petition is pending with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place the gnatcatcher on the federal endangered species list. A decision is due by September, and could make the state proceedings moot.

California Gnatcatcher Habitat

The California gnatcatcher is found on sagebrush mesas and dry coastal slopes from Southern California to northern Baja California in Mexico. It has a distinctive call, a rising and falling, kittenlike mew. Only about 4 1/2 inches in length, the gnatcatcher is brownish on top, with lighter-colored feathers underneath, and has a longish black tail.

Source: County of Orange