Panel Proposes Policy to Slow Loss of Ecological Areas

A Los Angeles County advisory committee Monday called for a new policy requiring developers who degrade Significant Ecological Areas to acquire and preserve replacement lands of similar habitat value.

The Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee endorsed the policy as a way to slow the loss of the county’s 61 Significant Ecological Areas, mostly private lands that were designated a dozen years ago as strongholds of native plants and wildlife.

Such a policy would probably face strong resistance from developers.

But the obscure advisory panel, known as SEATAC, has no power to adopt the policy. And it is uncertain if the county’s land-use regulators--the Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors--would be willing to take the step to protect the SEAs, or habitat zones.

“At this point, it’s too early to tell . . . whether anything’s going to come of this or not,” said Frank Meneses, head of environmental impact analysis for the Department of Regional Planning and staff liaison to SEATAC. “I can’t tell you for sure . . . what our next move is.”

SEATAC is a volunteer panel of professional biologists who review and comment on building projects proposed for SEAs.

Designated in the county’s 1980 General Plan, the SEAs include habitat for rare animals, birds and plants, and prime remnants of once-common natural areas. About half of the 61 SEAs are in unincorporated areas of the county and the rest within municipal boundaries.

Although the General Plan declares it county policy to protect the SEAs, development within them is not prohibited and many of the areas have been built in or are under strong development pressure.

SEATAC’s call for a policy of “no net loss . . . of designated SEA land” was triggered by a landfill expansion case that could be a trial balloon for the idea. The panel, however, made clear its view that the policy should be applied to all developments that disturb SEAs.

Browning-Ferris Industries last year won approval from supervisors to expand its Sunshine Canyon Landfill above Granada Hills. But in a lawsuit filed by opponents, a Superior Court judge in April ordered a halt to the expansion and remanded the case to the county to repair defects in the project’s environmental review.

Among other things, Judge Ronald Sohigian ruled that the county erred in failing to submit the project’s environmental impact report to SEATAC.

SEATAC’s recommendations on the dump--including adoption of the “no net loss” policy for Sunshine Canyon and other projects--will be forwarded to the supervisors, who may vote again on the landfill expansion before the end of this month.

The dump expansion would delete about 540 acres of SEA 20, which includes a large, densely forested area of the Santa Susana Mountains. To help offset the loss, Browning-Ferris has proposed donating to the public nearly 500 acres of its holdings in adjacent East Canyon.

But East Canyon is already within the SEA, so the donation would not avert the loss of SEA land. That could be prevented only if Browning-Ferris were to acquire habitat elsewhere and seek its inclusion in the SEA system.

If supervisors agreed to require this, “I don’t know what we’d do,” said Steven W. Weston, a lawyer for Browning-Ferris. “That’s a big expense.”

SEATAC also recommended that supervisors require Browning-Ferris to:

* Retain a biologist to monitor the effects of dump expansion on 23 species of birds and animals that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered.

* Use only native plant species in replanting the site after landfill operations.

* Retain a restoration ecologist to enhance wildlife habitat in East Canyon.

* Undertake a wetland replacement program nearer to the site. To offset damage to natural streams in Sunshine Canyon, Browning-Ferris agreed to finance wetland restoration on a stretch of the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena. SEATAC said the company should be required to restore wetlands nearer to Sunshine Canyon.