Gnatcatcher Habitat Funds Cut to Bone

In a possibly crippling blow, the Wilson Administration’s experimental program to preserve the nesting grounds of the California gnatcatcher was granted only 25% of the funding it expected in the newly adopted state budget.

Environmentalists predict that the smaller budget appropriation could prove fatal for the year-old program and claim that it provides yet another reason why the tiny Southern California songbird needs to be declared an endangered species.

Administration officials, however, say they are committed to making their troubled program work, although at this point they don’t know how it can survive on $362,000 instead of the $1.45 million approved by the Senate, which had already slashed the Administration’s original $1.75-million budget request.

“It’s not a lethal blow, but it’s a hard hit, and we’re going to have to find a way to make it work. . . . We’re not going to let the program die,” said Carol Whiteside, assistant director of the state Resources Agency, which oversees the program.

Agency officials are now scrambling to find funds they can divert from other environmental programs in California, although they acknowledge those are financially hard pressed too.

“We’ll just have to take a look at all of our programs and redirect what is necessary,” Whiteside said.

Gov. Pete Wilson has hailed the controversial program as a new, non-adversarial approach to saving endangered species, and it has been eyed in Washington as a national model for conservation.

The program, called Natural Communities Conservation Planning, seeks to persuade big landowners, real estate developers and local governments to voluntarily set aside land to create preserves containing the bird’s natural habitat, as well as 35 other sensitive animals that reside there.

The four-inch, gray songbird with a long black tail inhabits sagebrush found in parts of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties.

The Administration’s goal is to avoid endangered-species listing, which the building industry opposes because of the potentially severe impact on development throughout Southern California. The federal government last year proposed the gnatcatcher as an endangered species, with a final decision due next week. The state denied endangered-species protection, although that decision has been challenged in the courts.

This year’s funding is considered crucial for the project because the Resources Agency is supposed to be identifying lands that would become a permanent set of preserves. Several large developers in Orange and San Diego counties, including the Irvine Co. and Santa Margarita Co., have agreed to a temporary building moratorium on gnatcatcher habitat during that planning period, which ends in November of next year.

The bulk of the original $1.75-million budget request--between $600,000 and $800,000--had been earmarked as grants to local governments to compile biological field data on gnatcatcher habitat. Now those grants are “probably out the window,” Whiteside said.

Also, the cut means fewer state biologists and other employees can be hired at the state Department of Fish and Game to monitor development and identify critical areas that should be preserved. The Resources Agency had planned to hire a team of 12 to 15, including at least five apiece in Orange and San Diego counties.

Orange County Planning Director Tom Mathews said Thursday that the slashed funding makes local government officials--who were already dubious--even more questioning of how serious the Wilson Administration is about the gnatcatcher program.

The lack of grants leaves Orange County in better shape than its neighboring counties because it had already allocated $600,000 for wildlife habitat planning, mostly from funds paid by two developers, Mathews said. But he said $450,000 has already been spent and the county is running out of money for the gnatcatcher work.

“It’s going to be very, very tight,” Mathews said. “I’m disappointed because we won’t get money from the state, but . . . we’ve made a commitment to go forward with this, and we’ll just have to do more with less.”

John McCaull, a legislative analyst for the National Audubon Society, said there is “no way” that the program can survive on one-quarter of its funding.

“It’s not acceptable to just have a skeleton, bare-bones project run out of Sacramento,” he said.

The Audubon Society and other major environmental groups say they would challenge any effort by the Wilson Administration to take funds from other conservation programs.

“Other programs cannot afford to be reduced in staff or purpose for this program. When times are so lean, they can’t trim much off. There are rumors it would be from other endangered species programs, which would be completely inappropriate,” McCaull said.

The program was off to a rocky start even before the funding was slashed.

Although interest has been high among developers and local governments in San Diego and Orange counties, it has failed to attract much support in the other three counties.

Also, some environmentalists who originally backed it withdrew their support, calling the program weak and ineffective. They accused Wilson of using it as a delaying tactic. They say that the program failed to stop the bulldozing of about 2,000 acres of coastal sage scrub in the past year and that protection of a species which may be edging toward extinction cannot be left to the whims of the state budgeting process.

The Wilson Administration and developers say the voluntary approach is the best method to deal with the gnatcatcher, since an endangered-species listing would unnecessarily freeze development and make conservation too adversarial. They say the bird is not seriously threatened, especially because large preserves already exist and building has slowed during the recession.

For months, the funding was caught in a debate in the Legislature over the merits of the governor’s program. State Sen. Dan McCorquodale, a powerful San Jose Democrat who heads the Senate’s natural resources committee, held up the funding to try to get legislators to pass a bill requiring more constraints on development of the habitat. But those attempts were fought off by conservative members of the Senate and the Building Industry Assn.

Although he calls the program weak, Dan Silver, director of a coalition of 30 environmental groups, called the funding cut “regrettable” because “the only people who gain are those who don’t want any type of conservation planning.”

The slashed budget will also make it more difficult for the state to process new development proposals, which is bad news to developers.

“It means that it becomes harder and harder to deal with it in a timely way,” Whiteside said. “We get complaints already that the department doesn’t respond quickly enough.”

Times staff writer Ralph Frammolino contributed to this story.