Plan to Save Gnatcatcher Still Grounded : Wildlife: Wilson Administration’s ballyhooed project to protect the threatened bird has failed to take off, and critics say the gnatcatcher is now in even more danger.

Seven months ago, the promises were bold and the expectations high.

The Wilson Administration vowed to bring developers, environmentalists and local politicians together to voluntarily protect the California gnatcatcher and create a brave new world of wildlife protection. It is an ambitious effort at partnership, eyed nationally as a model.

Then, during the long, back-and-forth of negotiations, the pencils came out.

Words were scratched off contracts and provisions eliminated. Promises were broken and expectations faded. Milestones failed to materialize, and nearly all deadlines were missed.

Now the effort--which Gov. Pete Wilson hailed as the “cornerstone” of his statewide environmental policy--is much different than his Administration originally intended and far behind schedule.

“We all went into this knowing it was going to be very difficult,” said Undersecretary of Resources Michael Mantell, who heads the effort. “It’s proven even more difficult than we’d planned.”

“But,” he added, “there’s no evidence that this program is in trouble. There’s been enormous progress in terms of data collection, in terms of scientific understanding of this habitat, and now, enrollment forms have been put out for landowners and local governments that will provide participation in the program and some interim protection.”

Yet, for various reasons, many of those involved say they are frustrated and unhappy.

Environmentalists have dropped out of the program or repudiated it. State Department of Fish and Game biologists call it “pathetic” and “toothless.” Developers say they might not sign on because they fear too many constraints on their land. And local government officials are leery of an effort that requires them to restrict development.

Calling the conservation program weak and ineffective, the chairman of a key state Senate committee warned earlier this month that he will reject its $1.75 million in proposed funding unless the effort is overhauled to ensure that the California gnatcatcher is protected from development.

The governor’s embattled program has “significant weaknesses . . . which make it very difficult to justify the budget,” Sen. Dan McCorquodale (D-Modesto) wrote in a letter to Secretary of Resources Douglas Wheeler.

As chairman of the Senate’s Natural Resources Committee, McCorquodale is in an influential position to hold back the money. His committee convenes Tuesday to discuss the proposed $2.5-billion budget of the California Resources Agency, which includes $1.75 million for the conservation program for the 1992-93 fiscal year.

The Administration urged the state’s Fish and Game Commission last August to reject the advice of state biologists and deny endangered-species listing for the gnatcatcher because of the new conservation program. The endangered bird lives only in San Diego, Orange and western Riverside counties, in coastal sage scrub habitats that in many cases are slated for development.

McCorquodale said in his March 12 letter that “the case for listing is even stronger now,” because some of the bird’s habitat has been destroyed since August.

“Unfortunately, several of the worst fears over the looseness of this program have come true,” he wrote.

The senator told Wheeler in the letter that, “in order to be an effective program, it must include at a minimum” temporary controls on development of the bird’s habitat, monitoring of grading activities, enforcement authority to ensure that agreements are adhered to, and specified milestones and deadlines.

“If not, I do not see that funding the effort is a wise use of the very limited resources we have,” he wrote.

McCorquodale chastised Wheeler for “deciding not to uphold your commitment to work this year to strengthen” the program.

Indeed, the Wilson Administration has failed to meet its own definition of success. Eight of the 10 goals the California Resources Agency set for itself last October have not been achieved, and most of its own deadlines have been missed, according to Resources Agency files.

The Administration’s mission was pioneering: to forge voluntary agreements that preserve wildlife habitat and avoid the constraints of the Endangered Species Act. The goal is to protect entire ecosystems rather than single species, a concept that all parties strongly support.

The pilot program targets coastal sage scrub, which is inhabited not only by the gnatcatcher but also by 38 other species under consideration for endangered-species protection.

Last fall, the Administration vowed that local governments and landowners would sign contracts ensuring that the bird’s habitat won’t be lost to development over the next 18 months while the program evolves.

But a Times review of state files shows that the state Resources Agency has repeatedly bowed during negotiations to Southern California developers and local governments by diluting or erasing key provisions that would protect the habitat.

Despite the problems and delays, state officials and developers are telling the Bush Administration and Congress that they are making progress and that it is unnecessary for the Department of the Interior to list the gnatcatcher as a national endangered species. The federal decision is due in September.

Also, Wheeler said he hopes to expand the program throughout California to include other highly species that have caused contention, especially the delta smelt.

Mantell said in an interview that cementing voluntary agreements has been more difficult than expected. However, he said it is premature to label the Natural Communities Conservation Planning program a failure or a success.

Mantell said he will give landowners and local governments five more weeks to sign agreements, and that, if a large number doesn’t agree by then, he will not hesitate to seek immediate protection for the gnatcatcher under the state’s endangered species law.

A review of the Resources Agency’s memos and correspondence shows that progress has been much slower than expected:

* The state agency promised last fall that developers and other landowners would sign contracts to voluntarily set aside land for preserves. The first contract was supposed to be signed in November, and other developers were to sign up by Feb. 28. The contract forms, however, weren’t completed until last week, several months behind schedule, and no developer or other private landowner has signed up.

* The agency said local governments would sign contracts to impose temporary controls on development of coastal sage scrub. But those contract forms also weren’t ready until last week, and no city or county has signed up.

* Mantell promised to create “strong disincentives” to persuade developers, cities and counties to participate. None has materialized.

* The agency said it would monitor loss of the habitat, including aerial surveillance, beginning in September. It also said it would prosecute offenders and change regulations to impose new “severe penalties.” Instead, the agency depends mainly on word of mouth and reports from environmentalists; there is no state enforcement team to monitor grading or increased penalties.

* The agency promised--but has not delivered--changes in the state’s two main conservation laws, the California Environmental Quality Act and the Fish and Game Codes. The changes were supposed to remove exemptions and create a permit system to protect sensitive habitats. A proposal was intended to be out for public review in October, but it has not materialized.

* Developers who build on coastal sage scrub were supposed to be required to compensate by restoring five times more acreage elsewhere and setting aside funds for maintaining it. That has not been required.

* The program’s scientific review panel has not yet designated significant natural areas of habitat or set boundaries for new preserves as promised.

Mantell announced the voluntary program Aug. 30 at a meeting of the state Fish and Game Commission. At the meeting, the commissioners were set to decide whether the gnatcatcher should be protected as an endangered species.

But, before the discussion could begin, Mantell took the unprecedented action of persuading the commissioners to deny listing the gnatcatcher. He told them a new voluntary program would protect the habitat while still allowing development and added that, if the program failed to meet its milestones, he would urge the commission to list the bird.

Environmentalists now accuse the Wilson Administration of using the program as a delaying tactic to avoid the state and federal listings of the bird.

“Mantell and the Resources Agency have lost their credibility entirely,” said Dan Silver, who sits on the state program’s informal advisory panel and heads the Endangered Habitats League, a coalition of 30 environmental groups.

“Instead of admitting it hasn’t lived up to expectations, admitting that they didn’t do what they said they would do, they won’t admit its weaknesses,” he said. “It’s all happy talk. They say: ‘Don’t worry, be happy.’ But we’re not happy. This program stinks.”

Two state officials said in interviews that nearly everyone in the agency’s wildlife department is disappointed in the results and worried that the program is jeopardizing the gnatcatcher’s chances of survival by failing to set aside habitat or manage development.

“The stuff on the table right now has no teeth in it. There’s nothing that makes people save habitat, which is the bottom line,” said one state Fish and Game official who did not want to be identified. “It never got off the ground, and what’s left is pathetic. Pathetic is the word I hear most” among department employees.

Developers say they are unhappy, too, but for a different reason. Although they originally prompted the effort by recommending it to Wilson, they now worry that they might be giving away too many property rights if they enroll their land.

“There is a real question as to whether (the agreements) go well beyond any legitimate requirements. . . . Whether that is something we can live with is yet to be seen,” said Monica Florian, an Irvine Co. vice president who is representing developers in the negotiations.

Wilson Administration officials acknowledge that they have not met their own goals and had trouble reaching consensus. They blame much of the delay on a lack of good scientific data about the habitat and legal obstacles in drafting enforceable contracts.

Mantell defended the program as “a genuine attempt to bring together interests that have been warring for years, in terms of environmentalists, local governments and landowners.”

The agency last week began circulating contracts to cities, counties and developers asking them to enroll in the program by May 1.

The local government contracts, however, barely resemble the ones originally proposed last fall. In the originals drafted by the Resources Agency, city and county governments would have had to impose tough restraints on development of coastal sage scrub for 18 months.

Local officials would have needed the consent of state and federal wildlife agencies before approving developments of the habitat. And they would have agreed to “ensure that no discretionary permits are issued for (development) projects that would result in a significant impact to coastal sage scrub habitat or any of the target species.”

But Florian of the Irvine Co., on behalf of a group of developers in Southern California, wrote to the agency March 2 that those provisions were “so onerous as to be a virtual moratorium in many areas.” She warned that they had no legal basis and “will drastically diminish the participation of both local governments and landowners.” Attached was a four-page list of recommended changes.

Within a week, the Resources Agency made nearly all of the alterations, state documents show. The remaining provisions allow local governments to approve developments if they “assess” and “monitor” impacts and “strongly consider” the advice of wildlife officials.

“It’s almost as if the Irvine Co. has become the Resources Agency,” said Silver, who was part of the negotiations. “Monica Florian says something is unacceptable, and then boom, out come the pencils.”

The Irvine Co. replies that developers would still be making major sacrifices if they sign up land, and that the original contracts wouldn’t have been legally enforceable.

“The suggestion that this is a developer-driven program is totally off base. It has no foundation and frankly is dead wrong,” Florian said. “We wouldn’t be looking at these forms and wondering if they work for us if the development industry were driving it.”

Florian said many parties, including city and county elected officials, had “a very strong reaction” to the original contracts, which she said followed “the environmentalists’ agenda.”

“Environmentalists want a veto power over all local governments by fish and wildlife agencies,” she said. “That proposal is totally contrary to the way government is set up in California. (Development) decisions are local decisions, and there is no legitimate way to usurp the power of local agencies.”

Some city and county officials registered loud objections, saying the state was trying to take away their authority and make them take the political heat of regulating development, as well as force them to pay for costly surveys and studies.

Brian Loew, executive director of Riverside County’s conservation agency, said the earlier versions of the contracts called on local governments to regulate all grading of the habitat, “and grading has proved to be a politically hot item.”

The Resources Agency backed off because they couldn’t risk scaring off local officials and had to ensure that everything was “legally defensible and scientifically based,” Mantell said.

“We cannot have state and federal agencies doing top-down planning everywhere in this country in terms of wildlife,” he said. “Ultimately, to be successful . . . we’ve got to institutionalize habitat planning at the local level.”

The state is counting on major local governments and landowners signing up within a month, especially the counties of Orange, San Diego and Riverside, the Irvine Co. and the Santa Margarita Co., and nine cities in northern San Diego County, said Carol Whiteside, assistant secretary of resources.

Mantell said he feels confident that the program has not failed, despite delays, because the “only significant” loss of gnatcatcher habitat since August was about 100 acres graded in Riverside County. Environmentalists and biologists, however, say the economic slowdown gets the credit for that.

The Wilson Administration says it will know by May 1 whether the program will work for the gnatcatcher.

“This is a process that we have got to find a way to make work, in one form or another. And, if it can work without a listing, fine, but, if it takes a listing of the gnatcatcher and then coming back to try to get it to work, that’s the way we’ll do it, too,” Mantell said. “We have to get ahead of the curve in California in terms of endangered species.”