Tiny Bird Flies in the Face of Home Industry

When a letter arrives at state Fish and Game headquarters, Darlene McGriff can tell if it’s about the California gnatcatcher even before she opens it. “The envelope smokes,” McGriff, a staff zoologist, says with a laugh.

The tiny songbird that mews like a kitten and feeds on insects has stirred up more fervor and anxiety than any species ever considered for state protection, state wildlife officials say. Over the past few weeks, the California Fish and Game Commission has been under siege by mail dispatched by both sides--some passionate, some legalistic, but all contentious.

The debate will climax Thursday at a public hearing in Newport Beach, where the commission will consider whether to protect the California gnatcatcher, which nests in sagebrush found only in Orange, San Diego and western Riverside counties and a small part of Palos Verdes peninsula. The bird would be the first species in the Los Angeles basin to be protected in three years.

“This hearing is going to be like two guys in foxholes, throwing grenades at each other,” said Thomas Mathews, Orange County’s director of planning. “I just hope that if I’m in the middle, I’m wearing a flak jacket.”

At stake is the future of an estimated 3,500 acres of land in Orange and San Diego counties--as well as an unidentified amount in Riverside--that builders plan to develop over the next 18 months. Local developers estimate the value of the Orange and San Diego counties land at roughly $1 billion.

The 4-inch, blue-gray bird can survive only in coastal sage scrub, a rare and depleted mix of Southern California vegetation that is home to hundreds of animal species. About half of the remaining scrub is spread throughout San Diego County. In Orange County, much of the prime nesting area lies in two sweeping blocks: the coastal hills between Newport Beach, Irvine and Laguna Beach owned by the Irvine Co., and the canyons northwest of Ortega Highway owned by Santa Margarita Co.

If the commission invokes the Endangered Species Act to protect the songbird, dozens of housing and road projects throughout the three counties could be immediately delayed.

Included are Orange County’s $680-million San Joaquin Hills tollway, the 2,500-home Las Flores development near Mission Viejo proposed by the Santa Margarita Co., and several large Irvine Co. planned communities, including East Orange and Newport Ridge, which is about to be built in the hills above the valuable Newport Coast between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach. In south-central San Diego County, the Baldwin Co.’s massive Otay Ranch community, scheduled to begin construction in two to three years, could also be put on hold.

“There is an extraordinary amount of interest in this issue because of the financial aspects. You’re talking about some of California’s most expensive real estate,” said Paul Jensen, the Fish and Game Department’s deputy administrator who oversees the state’s endangered-species program.

Donald Steffensen, executive vice president of the Irvine-based Lusk Co., one of the nation’s largest builders, says slow-growth advocates are using the Endangered Species Act as a weapon to stop all building, especially Orange County’s three proposed toll roads.

Listing the bird (as endangered) would be “a tragedy, not just for the thousands of individuals who depend on the jobs and houses generated by any industry, but for all the people of California,” Steffensen wrote to wildlife officials.

Environmentalists, however, contend that the real tragedy will occur if the bird is left unprotected and it slides further toward extinction. They stress that its demise would signal that much of Southern California’s natural terrain has been so drastically altered that it eventually may not sustain any type of wildlife.

Fish and Game Commission President Everett McCracken said he hasn’t made up his mind yet on the gnatcatcher proposal. But he said one thing is almost certain: “Chances are, it will go to court either way we go.”

At this stage, the commissioners do not have to decide if the bird should be listed as endangered. They only have to conclude whether a petition that was filed by an ornithologist is complete and has shown that listing “may be warranted,” according to the state Endangered Species Act.

If so, the bird becomes an official candidate for listing. Immediate protections are set in place, and the bird’s habitat cannot be harmed while Fish and Game biologists conduct a one-year review of scientific data to determine whether full protection is warranted.

The commission is required by law to make this decision based entirely on scientific grounds; the impact on the economy cannot be considered.

Fearing that use of their land would be put on hold, Southern California developers and builders, led by Irvine attorney Hugh Hewitt, have launched an unprecedented push to persuade the commission to reject the petition.

“This is the first time we have seen such an organized and aggressive assault in this stage of the process,” said Paul Kelly, a Fish and Game endangered-species biologist.

The Fish and Game staff has taken no formal position yet on whether the gnatcatcher should be listed as endangered. But it has advised the commission to accept the petition Thursday, granting gnatcatchers the one-year protection, Jensen said.

Studies provided by independent biologists overwhelmingly support the case. But several of the state agency’s endangered-species experts expressed concern that the builders’ attorneys and consultants will confuse the commissioners, who have no scientific background.

“I find it very disconcerting that there is an effort under way to derail the process early on,” said Kelly, who led the state’s program to list species before he was promoted four months ago. “By saying it doesn’t warrant candidacy, they (builders) are essentially saying no, we don’t want Fish and Game looking more carefully at this animal.”

The petition seeking protection for the gnatcatcher was filed by Jonathan Atwood, a Massachusetts ornithologist and former Southern Californian who has researched the gnatcatcher for over a decade, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group.

Atwood predicted in his petition that “nearly all” gnatcatcher areas will be destroyed within 20 years because of “the intensive urban development activities that are presently being planned.”

The Building Industry Assn. of Southern California hired its own biologist, who reached different conclusions than the research outlined in Atwood’s petition.

The building industry’s study contends that Atwood’s estimates of gnatcatcher populations and existing habitat are exaggerated, and failed to consider that large amounts of coastal sage scrub--about 100 square miles in Orange and San Diego counties--already have been protected.

H. Lee Jones, the Irvine consulting biologist who conducted the builders’ study, said there is no question that the bird’s habitat has been depleted, but “the bird is not in as bad shape as people are being led to believe.”

Atwood’s study says the gnatcatcher population in California could be 1,819 to 2,262, based on counts taken at Camp Pendleton and applied to Southern California at large. But he believes a more realistic estimate is “certainly less than 2,000 pairs and possibly less than 1,200,” according to his study. Jones’ study estimates that there are 1,645 to 1,880 pairs.

Jensen said Fish and Game officials found nothing in Jones’ reports to convince them that the scientific data in Atwood’s petition is erroneous. Atwood said he would be “astounded” if the commission rejects that advice and votes otherwise.

“Although there are some people within consulting firms that claim to have different information or come to different conclusions, they are in the minority when it comes to what ornithologists and scientists in Southern California think,” Atwood said.

Fish and Game’s McCracken, however, said in an interview with The Times that the state’s biologists or published, independent scientists are no more credible to him than those hired by developers. He added that he believes important data is often left out of the petitions.

“A lot of (biologists) have strong biases,” McCracken said. “Certainly anyone who submits a petition has a certain bias, and they aren’t going to submit information to you that would in any way detract from their cause.”

Two state Fish and Game commissioners will cast votes on the issue, Benjamin Biaggini and Albert Taucher. McCracken will vote only in case of a tie. All three are businessmen and Republicans appointed by former Gov. George Deukmejian, and their voting records show they usually reject contentious endangered-species petitions. A newly appointed commissioner, who is a former president of a conservation group, is abstaining, and the fifth position is vacant.

The bird is also being considered for federal protection as a national endangered species, with a decision required by Sept. 21. But environmentalists say state protection is vital, because even if federal officials list the bird, their halt on development may not go into effect for a year, while state protection would be immediate.

“Without prompt protection by the state of California, thousands of acres of critical habitat will be destroyed during the next 12 months as land developers accelerate projects . . . to avoid future regulatory restrictions,” the environmentalists’ petition says.

Environmentalists point out that one of the developers’ own studies concluded that the gnatcatcher should be listed as a threatened species. Michael Gilpen, a biologist with UC San Diego commissioned by a coalition of 20 developers, reported that the bird “is certainly a species threatened with extinction.”

The building industry discredits that report. Hewitt said Gilpen analyzed old, faulty data supplied by Atwood. “So it was garbage in, garbage out,” he said.

Builders and developers say the future of the gnatcatcher should be handled not by the coercion of law, but by a new voluntary coalition headed by Gov. Pete Wilson’s undersecretary of resources. The governor appointed a scientific panel to identify critical land that developers would be asked to preserve.

Mathews, Orange County’s planning director, agrees with the builders. If the gnatcatcher is listed, “there is going to be more damage done to the planning process in Orange County than anything in the past 15 years,” he said.

He added that the county has worked hard to get developers to set aside land to protect wildlife, and that listing the gnatcatcher would derail that process because it is likely to wind up in court.

Environmentalists counter that without the force of law, history has shown that voluntary efforts fail and the species will decline. Some state wildlife officials said they, too, worry that if major developments go forward, everyone may learn--too late--that the land was vital to gnatcatchers as well as other wildlife dependent on coastal sage scrub.

“If you go ahead, you might essentially undermine the ultimate objective,” said Larry Eng, Fish and Game’s environmental services supervisor. “You can set aside a certain amount of habitat, but from the animal’s perspective, if it isn’t enough to keep them alive, it won’t do any good in the long run.”

The California Gnatcatcher

Once common throughout Southern California, the California gnatcatcher is now found only in patches of Orange, San Diego and western Riverside counties and part of Palos Verdes. From 66% to 90% of its habitat, called coastal sage scrub, has already been destroyed, and many remaining areas are scheduled for development in the next few years.

The California gnatcatcher is found on sagebrush mesas and dry coastal slopes. It has a distinctive call, a rising and falling, kitten-like mew. Only about 4.5 inches in length, the gnatcatcher is blue gray on top, with lighter-colored feathers underneath, and has a longish black tail.

Source: Dr. Jonathan Atwood

The California Gnatcatcher

A biologist from the Manomet Bird Observatory in Massachusetts has asked the state to declare the California gnatcatcher an endangered species. The biologist, Jonathan Atwood, filed research estimating that up to 90% of the bird’s habitat has disappeared to development. Much of the remaining habitat is on property slated for development. A consulting biologist hired by the Building Industry Assn. disputes that estimate, saying 66% remains.

Remaining acres of coastal sage scrub Pairs of gnatcatchers Atwood Builders Atwood Builders Orange County 40,000 54,000 240-298 325-350 San Diego County 125,000 147,000 958-1,770 1,000-1,100 Riverside County 79,000 153,000 755-939 300-400 L.A. County under 1,000 not determined 54-67 20-30 Estimated Total 245,000 354,000 1,819-2262 1,645-1,880

Source: Dr. Jonathan Atwood and Building Industry Assn.