Debate on Gnatcatcher Flares Anew at Hearing : Wildlife: Most come to urge federal protection of bird. Rep. Dannemeyer and a Gabrielino Indian provide most of the drama.

In five hours of impassioned pleas, environmentalists and the development industry squared off again Tuesday over the future of the California gnatcatcher, this time addressing the federal team that has proposed the bird for protection as a national endangered species.

The often-passionate testimony showed that forces on both sides of the long debate haven’t lost their momentum, nor their anxieties, when it comes to the tiny Southern California songbird.

The purpose of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s hearing was to solicit new information concerning the threat--or lack of threat--to the gnatcatcher, as well as any additional bird sightings or scientific findings.

The wildlife agency announced in September that the bird, which is native to Orange, San Diego and western Riverside counties, warrants listing and proposed it for federal protection. The final decision is due in September, after a yearlong period of review.

An estimated 75 people attended the three-hour afternoon session at a Garden Grove hotel, with almost 40 testifying, while about 45 people attended the two-hour nighttime hearing. A vast majority urged the agency to protect the bird, while Southern California developers sent only a few representatives.

Environmentalists on Tuesday told the panel from the agency’s Portland, Ore., and Laguna Niguel offices that their last hope for saving the bird from extinction rested with the federal government because the state has denied listing. Developers, however, stressed that the bird faces no imminent threat and that the agency should await results of crucial new studies.

The most dramatic moments came from two diametrically opposed speakers: a Gabrielino Indian who tearfully spoke of her people’s love of the gnatcatcher’s land, and an Orange County congressman who stressed that it is foolish to sacrifice the needs of people for the needs of an animal.

Stacy Thompson of Claremont, representing the Gabrielino Tribal Council, said a plant called white sage, found in the coastal sage scrub inhabited by the gnatcatcher, is sacred to the American Indians of Southern California. She compared the five-inch bird with blue-gray feathers to her tribe, saying both are on the verge of extinction.

“Coastal sage scrub was and still is our church. In the past, the gnatcatcher was always there. Now the bird is not always there and our church is no longer the same,” she said. “We’re being asked to let a part of ourselves die. The gnatcatcher must be listed as an endangered species in order to let it, and the coastal sage scrub it inhabits, live on.”

A short time later, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) delivered an equally impassioned speech urging the wildlife agency to consider the potential effects on an already stagnant economy.

Dannemeyer, running for the U.S. Senate, called it “insane” to let a bird stand in the way of needed jobs, roads and homes. He said he has proposed legislation that would make major changes in the Endangered Species Act by requiring the economic impact of listing a species to be weighed in the decision.

“It is time we put a rational judgment into this whole process of listing a critter. . . . We know the game going on here. There are some leaders in the environmental party that want to shut down the economy of California. Please don’t accommodate them,” he said.

His words prompted an angry display from many environmentalists in the audience, including one who got in a brief shouting match with the congressman in the hall outside the meeting room. As Dannemeyer began his five-minute speech, more than a dozen audience members silently signaled thumbs down, while others booed and shouted.

Dannemeyer dismissed the heckling, calling it “an exhibition of people on the political left.”

In general, the audience remained well-behaved, showing support or displeasure by raising their fists or turning thumbs down. The actions came at the suggestion of the federal hearing moderator, who had asked people to make the motions instead of shouting.

The hearing, however, was more show than substance. Both sides know that the information that carries the most weight with the agency will come in the volumes of scientific literature on the bird.

The agency is required by law to only consider scientific data and potential threats to the bird when deciding upon a listing. Only after a listing, when deciding which land to protect, can the agency consider the economic impact.

Laer Pearce, a spokesman for a coalition of Orange, San Diego and Riverside County developers, said 100 square miles of habitat has already been protected and that some local governments are passing new ordinances to protect the gnatcatcher.

He also urged the federal government to give some time to a program created by the Wilson Administration last fall that is trying to bring environmentalists and developers together to protect habitat.

“Development, given the economy and the myriad environmental restrictions we work under, does not pose an imminent danger,” Pearce said. “New evidence continues to be assembled which shows that the gnatcatchers in California are much more viable than previously thought.”

Builders have requested an extension of the federal comment period, which ends March 16, so that results of new studies can be taken into consideration. They said they need the extension because the bird nests in spring, and biological surveys are needed during that time.

The federal agency, however, has already extended the period to six months, the longest ever for a species. The usual period for accepting information is 60 to 90 days.

“We’d be hard-pressed to extend it, since we already have granted a 180-day comment period,” David Klinger, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional office in Portland.

The main concern voiced Tuesday by environmentalists was that local elected officials are approving development of the bird’s habitat despite the federal proposal.

Pete DeSimone, representing the National Audubon Society and its Orange County chapter, said Orange County’s supervisors have been “shortsighted” and “duplicitous.” He said the county government had promised to protect the bird but instead plans to sell almost 75 acres of dedicated open space inhabited by the bird to the Foothill Ranch Co. for conversion to a business park.

“We are seeing negotiations and planning going nowhere, and in this instance, back-room deals with developers that seek to sell off habitat that is already protected,” he said.

If the gnatcatcher is listed, the wildlife service would protect the bird, which means landowners would have to obtain federal approval for any project that would harm its habitat.

In Orange County, the main areas that are home to the bird are in hills between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, as well as canyons northwest of the Ortega Highway. Two large landowners--the Irvine Co. and Santa Margarita Co.--own most of that property.

Although the gnatcatcher is one of the most controversial candidates for endangered species protection in the West, the crowd nowhere approached the mobs in 1989 who attended hearings regarding proposed listing of the spotted owl, which lives in Northern California forests. Klinger said about 10,000 people, mostly timber company workers, attended those hearings.

“I’m a little surprised there aren’t more people here,” Klinger said. “We’ve also had several hundred individual written comments come in. That’s not voluminous. With the spotted owl, we had some 20,000 written comments.”

A second hearing will be held Thursday at the San Diego Convention Center, from 1 to 4 p.m. and from 6 to 8 p.m.