Gnatcatcher Decision Postponed for Month : Environment: Commission will study new data before ruling on endangered-species petition.

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 controversial 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 confi dent that 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 request for 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 low-lying Southern California canyons that are 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 numerous development projects in Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties is at stake, as well as that of the planned San Joaquin Hills tollway.

If the commission decides on Aug. 30 that the bird is a candidate for the endangered-species list, its habitat will be 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 M. McCracken, the commission’s president.

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 list of endangered species. Fewer than 2,000 of the birds exist, Fish and Game biologists said. The listing could affect the logging of California’s old-growth forests.

On the gnatcatcher issue, the four commissioners will not accept any more testimony or written comments. The panel 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 had been submitted in the last week that Fish and Game biologists had not reviewed it.

Several reports were presented Thursday, including a major Orange County-commissioned survey of gnatcatchers and their habitat in county parks. The new reports and letters were stacked so high on the commission’s table that it was difficult to see the four men seated behind them.

Commission Executive Director Bob Treanor said the panel has received more information and letters about the gnatcatcher than about 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.

Fish and Game 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--Albert C. Toucher and Benjamin F. Biaggini--and one appointed a few months ago by Gov. Pete Wilson--Frank Boren.

Commissioner Boren surprised the audience by saying he would vote in the gnatcatcher issue. Boren had 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 officials and others filled the aisles and a balcony.

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

Five biologists, including two from UC Irvine, testified in support of the petition, as did members of local and national environmental groups. The opposing viewpoint came from builders’ representatives, their consulting biologist and various 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.

Todd Nicholson, president of the Industrial League of Orange County, said the attempt to list the bird is a ploy to stop construction of the county’s three proposed toll roads and major housing developments.

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.

Several biologists, including UCI’s Richard McMillan, testified that nearly all their colleagues agree that the bird needs protection. They contended that lands already protected are insufficient because they do not necessarily provide good habitat for the bird, which can survive only in specific parts of coastal sage scrub--very low, flat areas dominated by sagebrush.

WHAT PRICE BIRD?: Builders won’t put one on protecting the gnatcatcher. A14

Point and Counterpoint

The two sides in the debate over the California gnatcatcher are at odds over several key issues involving the bird. Supporters of a petition to grant the bird endangered species protection include environmental groups and independent biologists. Opponents include Southern California’s major builders and developers. Gnatcatcher population Supporters: The bird’s population is fewer than 2,000 pairs and possibly fewer than 1,200. The estimate is an extrapolation based on counts at Camp Pendleton, since independent surveyors have not been allowed on privately owned property. Opponents: The population is between 1,645 and 1,880 pairs, with much of that estimate based on counts by consultants hired by major landowners. Habitat destruction Supporters: A century ago, Southern California had 2.5-million acres of coastal sage scrub (the vegetation used by the bird), but now as little as 10%, or about 250,000 acres, remain. Opponents: About 350,000 acres remain, about 34% of the acreage 100 years ago and 44% of the amount in 1930. Future habitat loss Supporters: “Nearly all” gnatcatcher habitat will be gone in 20 years. Of 56 known sites where gnatcatchers nested in 1980, 33 of them (59%) were completely or partially destroyed by 1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says 28,000 acres are about to be graded. Opponents: At least 100 square miles of coastal sage scrub are permanently protected in parks and other public areas. A weak economy has slowed building, so only about 3,500 acres of the habitat will be developed in Orange and San Diego counties over the next 18 months to two years. Baja population Supporters: For the past 60 years, the American Ornithologists Union has listed the Mexico population as a different subspecies than that in California. Also, Mexico has no laws protecting endangered species. Opponents: An estimated 2.5 million gnatcatchers exist in Baja, and it is arguable that they are a different subspecies than the California birds, since there has been no recent ruling by the union of ornithologists. Public Lands Supporters: Most of the protected parkland is not prime habitat for the birds, which need low-lying land, under 820 feet in elevation, containing a particular type of sagebrush. Opponents: Public parks, including Laguna Canyon, have some high-quality gnatcatcher habitat, and other parks can be improved or restored to attract the birds.

Project in the Balance

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. Mountain Park

Irvine Co. won approval this month from the city of Anaheim to build this large community on 4,500 acres in Gypsum Canyon, including 1,400 acres of coastal sage scrub. Gnatcatchers were seen on the land last year.

B. Eastern tollway

This 13-mile road would link the Riverside Freeway and Laguna Canyon Road. The environmental study that will determine the impact on wildlife has not yet been completed. About 250 to 300 acres of coastal sage scrub would be lost.

C. East Orange

This 12,300-home community near Irvine Lake would encompass 7,110 acres of land. The Irvine Co. project would grade about 1,400 acres of coastal sage scrub.

D. Newport Ridge

This 2,550-home community, an Irvine Co. project, is planned for the San Joaquin Hills above the new Newport Coast development. It would destroy 63 acres of coastal sage scrub.

E. San Joaquin Hills tollway

The highway would slice through Laguna Canyon and the San Joaquin Hills and require grading of 156 acres of coastal sage scrub. Gnatcatchers were seen in two sites along its path. Construction is scheduled to begin next year.

F. Las Flores

This 2,500-home community is being built on about 1,000 acres of land between Mission Viejo and Coto de Caza. The Santa Margarita Co. began bulldozing the land last week. A total of 250 acres of coastal sage scrub will be graded.

G. Foothill tollway

The southern segment of this 30-mile highway would cut through undeveloped canyons in Rancho Mission Viejo. Sixty-three pairs of gnatcatchers were seen in its proposed path in a 1989 biological survey of the land.

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, would be built on 1,200 acres of land, including 366 acres of coastal sage scrub.

C. Hidden Valley Estates

Southwest Diversified, based in Irvine, wants to build a project on 1,460 acres in San Diego County, including 536 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.

Sources: Environmental Impact Reports, UC Irvine biologist Fred Roberts, San Diego County developers.