Decision on Gnatcatcher Postponed by State Fish and Game Commission

After hearing almost four hours of often raucous debate, the state Fish and Game Commission on Thursday postponed its decision on protection for the California gnatcatcher for one month so staff biologists can review mounds of new data regarding the bird.

The decision drew groans and shouts of dismay from many of the estimated 800 people in the audience. But both supporters and opponents said they remain confident they will prevail when the commission votes Aug. 30 on whether to declare the bird a candidate for the state endangered species list.

The request to list the gnatcatcher has triggered more controversy than any plant or animal previously considered for state protection. Builders have led the drive to defeat the request, while environmentalists and some biologists have made protection of the gnatcatcher one of their most pressing ecological causes.

“There’s little doubt in my mind that this will wind up in litigation either way the commission decides, so I’d like the commission to be in the strongest position possible,” Pete Bontadelli, director of the California Department of Fish and Game, said in announcing the delay. “I’d like all the information before them to be considered.”

The 4-inch, blue-gray songbird lives in the low-lying canyons of Southern California covered with coastal sage scrub, a type of vegetation that federal officials have called one of the most depleted habitats in the United States.

The scrub is found on some of the most valuable, developable land in the nation, worth $200,000 or more per acre, builders say. As a result, the future of many development projects in Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties is at stake, including the San Joaquin Hills tollway and several large housing developments.

If the commission decides on Aug. 30 that the bird is a candidate for the endangered species list, its habitat is protected for one year while a full review is conducted.

“None of these are easy decisions, but this is one of the most controversial we’ve faced,” said Everett McCracken, the commission’s president.

In San Diego County, those involved in four housing developments and the proposed extension of California 52 are all closely watching the Fish and Game Commission’s discussions.

“They are a fairly hard group to read,” said Mike Kennedy, director of development of the Home Capital Development Group, builder of the 3,000-acre Rancho San Diego project.

The project, with 6,100 residential units and 128 acres for industrial and commercial uses, is designed to “take” 350 acres of gnatcatcher habitat while maintaining 1,642 acres of open space.

“Until something definite happens, we are proceeding with our plans as approved by the county of San Diego. At such point that the rules are changed, we will have to assess our options at that point,” Kennedy said.

Those options depend on the severity of the commission’s rulings and could range from buying up and preserving gnatcatcher habitats elsewhere to redesigning the housing project to preserve the coastal sage scrub on the site, Kennedy said.

Other projects that will be affected by the ruling are the 19,700-acre Otay Ranch just south of Chula Vista, 1,200-acre Salt Creek Ranch just east of Chula Vista, and 1,460-acre Hidden Valley Estates in Jamul.

Plans for the extension of California 52 from Tierrasanta to California 67 might also be threatened.

After postponing the gnatcatcher decision, the commission added the marbled murrelet, a 10-inch sea bird found in the northern coastal forests of California, to the state’s endangered species list. Fewer than 2,000 of the birds exist, DFG biologists said. The listing could effect the logging of California’s old-growth forests.

On the gnatcatcher issue, the four-member commission will not accept any more testimony or written comments. It will only hear advice from Bontadelli and his staff before voting at its next meeting in Long Beach.

The commissioners decided to delay their vote after Bontadelli told them his staff could not make a full recommendation Thursday. Bontadelli said so much new data has been submitted in the past week that DFG biologists had not reviewed it.

Commission Executive Director Bob Treanor said the panel has received more information and letters about the gnatcatcher than with the last 20 candidates combined.

The petition seeking protection of the bird was filed in January by Jonathan Atwood, a biologist who has studied the gnatcatcher for more than 10 years, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group.

DFG biologists had earlier advised the commission to accept the petition and name the gnatcatcher a candidate, but Bontadelli said that was based only on the original petition.

Bontadelli said he and his staff have not switched their position, but he especially wants to review information on local land-use issues and regulations provided by county and city governments.

People on both sides of the issue said the postponement was not surprising given the intensity of the debate and the recent avalanche of data.

“I anticipated that, if they found some legal way to dodge the issue, they probably would. They realize they are in a politically touchy situation,” Atwood said.

Votes will be cast by three commissioners, two appointed by former Gov. George Deukmejian and one appointed a few months ago by Gov. Pete Wilson.

Commissioner Frank Boren, the new appointee, surprised the audience by saying he would vote in the gnatcatcher issue. Boren said last month that he would abstain because of a potential conflict of interest, but he said Thursday that he changed his mind after consulting with the commission’s attorney. Boren is former president of a conservation group that has worked with the Irvine Co. on management of species habitat.

Local environmentalists turned the event into a rally outside the auditorium, carrying small placards shaped like the songbird and signs proclaiming “No More Destruction Projects” and “Don’t Scrub Coastal Sage.” One environmental group hawked “Save the Gnatcatcher” T-shirts.

Builders groups also made a strong showing, passing out and wearing stickers that read “science, not slogans,” with a red slash through the word “listing.”

The Newport Harbor High School auditorium, which seats 800, was packed. The overflow crowd of environmentalists, biologists, business executives and others filled the aisles and a balcony.

Several times during the hearing, Commission President McCracken pounded a gavel and demanded silence from the audience when they cheered, booed or applauded. In a Texas drawl, the retired oilman reminded them “this is not a popularity contest.”

Four biologists, including two from UC Irvine, testified in support of the petition, as well as members of local and national environmental groups. The opposing viewpoint came from builders’ representatives, their consulting biologist and other business people and elected local officials.

Paul Beier, a wildlife biologist who studies mountain lions in Orange County, drew some of the loudest applause when he told the commission not to believe the “inane conclusions” of builders’ attorneys and consultants.

“Hugh Hewitt probably wouldn’t even recognize a gnatcatcher if it bit him on the nose,” Beier said.

Hewitt, an attorney representing the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, was hissed loudly when he approached the speakers’ podium. He told the commission that rejecting the petition “may not be popular with this audience, but it would be popular with Southern California.”

Like the environmentalists, most of the builders testifying against the petition stuck to scientific and legal arguments, since those are the only issues the commission can legally consider when it comes to listing endangered species. Economic concerns cannot be considered under the Endangered Species Act.

Builders argued that the bird is not at risk because large parcels of coastal sage scrub, at least 100 square miles, already have been preserved in parks and open space. They testified that only 2% of the bird’s habitat will be built upon, and one developer presented Audubon Society annual counts showing that sightings of gnatcatchers have increased for years.

“(Gnatcatchers) are not at the brink of extinction,” said H. Lee Jones, a biologist hired as a consultant by the Building Industry Assn.

Richard Perry, a Sacramento environmental policy specialist with the builders’ group, said the “shotgun approach of locking up large tracts of lands” by listing species does not work. “It has not given us the return of one endangered species,” he said, “adding that human beings are just as much a part of the ecosystem.”

Environmentalists and some biologists contend that immediate state protection is vital because developers are hurrying to bulldoze coastal sage scrub to avoid future restrictions. Atwood said he was somewhat concerned by the month’s delay because it could mean developers will grade more land.

“The very survival of our coastal ecosystem hangs in the balance,” said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Potential Impact If the state Fish and Game Commission decides the California gnatcatcher warrants special protection, the following projects are among those that could face delays and restrictions. The planned developments are on land that includes coastal sage scrub, which is home to the gnatcatcher. Construction on some of the projects is scheduled to begin within a year. A. Otay Ranch: This project by Baldwin Co. to build a community in south-central San Diego County encompasses 23,000 acres, about half of which is coastal sage scrub. Construction is expected to begin in 18 to 30 months. B. Salt Creek Ranch: This Baldwin Co. project in San Diego County, from a year to 18 months away from construction,w ould be built on 1,200 acres of land, including 366 acre of coastal sage scrub. C. Hidden Valley Estates: Southwest Diversified, based in Irvine, wants to build a project on 1,460 acres of coastal sage scrub, within the next year. D. Rancho San Diego: This Home Capital Corp. project in San Diego County would grade about 792 acres of coastal sage scrub. Some of the total 2,900 acres have already been graded. Source: Environmental Impact Reports, UC Irvine Biologist Fred Roberts, San Diego County developers.