U.S. Agency Delays Gnatcatcher Decision : Wildlife: Environmentalists say the postponement on the endangered-species status was prompted by politics.

U.S. wildlife officials Thursday postponed for up to six months a decision on adding the California gnatcatcher to the endangered-species list, saying they want clarification of a narrow scientific point.

Environmentalists charge that the White House pressured the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delay a decision on the contentious issue until after the November election. But U.S. Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr.’s spokesman called the allegations “absolutely preposterous.”

“It has absolutely nothing to do with political issues. It has everything to do with science,” Interior Department spokesman Steve Goldstein said. “The Fish and Wildlife Service has never shied away from listing a species as endangered when that’s the decision that should be made.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service is waiting for a definitive answer to a highly technical question about taxonomy: Are Southern California gnatcatchers a separate subspecies from similar gnatcatchers in Mexico? The wildlife agency has urged a national panel of ornithologists to rule quickly on the issue.

An influential group of Orange County and San Diego County developers opposed to the listing raised the subspecies question and requested the extension.

Robert Ruesink, a top official in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional office, said people within the federal agency believe that the two birds are separate subspecies. But they decided after much internal debate that they want concurrence from the American Ornithologists’ Union.

“What we’re trying to do is look at the possibility of legal challenges. We believe it is a valid (subspecies), but we want concurrence . . . which will shut down all of this ‘he said, you said’ and make it a real tight justification for the decision,” said Ruesink, chief of endangered-species listings in the agency’s Portland office.

Asked if the gnatcatcher will eventually be declared endangered, Ruesink said: “My answer is yes, I believe it will be listed. . . . I don’t think it should take a full six months, but I don’t know.”

Southern California’s building industry contends that there is no proof that the California birds are substantially different from those in Baja California. Since there are several million gnatcatchers in Baja, they say, the species should not be considered endangered.

Wildlife biologists and environmentalists argue that the only researchers who doubt that Southern California’s birds are distinct are working for the Building Industry Assn. and Chevron Land & Development Co.

Supporters of the listing say Fish and Wildlife seized on the taxonomy issue to justify a decision that was politically motivated.

“I think it’s a concocted excuse,” said Jonathan Atwood, an ornithologist who has studied the gnatcatcher for 10 years and whose research forms the basis of the proposal to list the bird. “There is nobody within the professional scientific community that is questioning this. The only debate is between professional scientists and a bunch of people hired by the developers.”

Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which petitioned the federal government to list the bird, said Thursday that “the probabilities are quite high that we will sue” to stop the extension. But he said that under the law, a suit can’t be filed for 60 days.

“I don’t think this decision was based on anything but politics,” Reynolds said. “They are straining to find some scientific issue that is superficially credible.”

Local builders said they were relieved to learn of the extension and will use the time to collect more data to oppose the listing.

“The jury is out,” said Sat Tamaribuchi, the Irvine Co.’s senior manager of environmental issues. “Up until now, the (Fish and Wildlife) Service didn’t have adequate information to make a sound decision. This is a major decision, and they should be very careful as to how they consider the information, since all of us have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on qualified biological studies that offer new insights.”

Fish and Wildlife has been studying gnatcatcher data for three years. A year ago, the agency proposed the bird as endangered and, by law, had one year in which to make a final decision. It is allowed to grant a onetime extension of up to six months only if there is substantial scientific debate.

Several Fish and Wildlife officials told The Times that the gnatcatcher issue has caused a rift within the agency and that pressure to extend the deadline came from the White House.

Interior Department spokesman Goldstein disagreed and said Lujan delegates endangered-species decisions to Fish and Wildlife to prevent White House interference, Goldstein said. “But he is made aware and is in concurrence on this,” he said.

The director of the agency, John Turner, and a deputy director who signed the extension were unavailable for comment Thursday.

Conservationists say the plight of the gnatcatcher is a sign that an entire ecosystem in Southern California is in peril. From two-thirds to 90% of the bird’s habitat, a mix of brush called coastal sage scrub, is gone. But developers have lobbied against listing the bird as endangered because the action could stop or delay millions of dollars in development and roads.

Goldstein said Lujan has great concern about the economic impact on Southern California.

“When you have this kind of economic impact, you have to make darned sure your science is credible and right,” Goldstein said.

Under the law, the agency cannot consider economic data when deciding whether to declare an animal or plant endangered. Cost and economic considerations are allowed only after the species is listed, when federal biologists decide which lands should be set aside.

A developers’ study says listing the bird would cause a 25% to 50% drop in construction in Southern California, translating into a loss of at least 106,000 jobs and $8 billion in revenue. Economists, however, have questioned the assumptions, saying the study overstates the impact because it assumes that all gnatcatcher habitat is developable and that no other building would offset the loss.

The Subspecies Debate

Are Southern California gnatcatchers truly a separate subspecies from similar gnatcatchers below the 30th parallel in Mexico? U.S. wildlife officials cited that question Thursday when they postponed for up to six months a decision on whether to add the bird to the endangered species list. The Fish and Wildlife Service has urged a national panel of ornithologists to rule quickly on the issue.

“There is nobody within the professional scientific community that is questioning this. The only debate is between professional scientists and a bunch of people hired by the developers.”

Jonathan Atwood has studied the California gnatcatcher for 10 years, and his research forms the basis of the proposal to declare the bird endangered, as well as the general belief that the Southern California gnatcatchers and the Mexican ones are distinct subspecies.

Atwood, senior scientist at a bird observatory in Massachusetts, says the Southern California birds are a different subspecies because they show over 30 variations when compared to the Mexican ones, from size of their bills to length of their tails. The major difference is coloring; the Southern California gnatcatchers have much darker gray feathers than gnatcatchers found south of El Rosario in north Baja.

Such color changes occurring all at once at one location, instead of gradually, generally mean genetic differences, Atwood said. He added that such differences occur in the El Rosario area not just with gnatcatchers but with other species, from mice to scorpions, indicating that some type of genetic barrier formed there.

Even if the local birds are similar to the Mexican ones, biologists say, it is important to save them from extinction to preserve biodiversity. “It is sort of analogous to what you’d say if you had different paintings by Van Gogh. You wouldn’t say because you have one Van Gogh, you can trash the others,” Atwood said. “You don’t have a full appreciation of the diversity if you lose the other works of art.”

“He’s making an assumption there that’s not supportable. . . . We just felt that he was trying to do too much with too little.”

C. Val Grant, a Utah wildlife biology consultant hired by Chevron Land Co., argues that the color variations in gnatcatchers may be caused not by genetic traits but weather and diet, since that area of Mexico changes from coastal sage scrub to desert conditions.

Grant also argues that some of the differences claimed by Atwood, such as bill size and tail length, are based on faulty evaluation of the available data. More evidence is needed, he believes, before the Southern California gnatcatcher can definitively be declared a separate subspecies: “For right now, there’s not enough data. . . . A lot of work needs to be done on this.”

While the definition of species is relatively precise, subspecies can be harder to define. “When it comes to subspecies, it seems to be an almost subjective type of decision,” Grant said. “I would say that’s one of the biggest problems in biology right now.”

Sources: Jonathan Atwood, C. Val Grant.

Researched by: Rick VanderKnyff, Marla Cone.

BIRD RUMOR HITS high school cross-country circles. C7B