Compromise Considered to Protect Gnatcatcher

Federal wildlife officials are considering a unique compromise for protecting the California gnatcatcher that would allow developers to avoid the restrictions of the Endangered Species Act if they participate in efforts to create preserves for the bird.

John Fay, chief of listing at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency is exploring an option of listing the bird as “threatened” instead of “endangered.”

That would allow the federal agency the flexibility to issue special rules to protect the bird--such as exempting landowners who participate in a voluntary state conservation program created by Gov. Pete Wilson.

“If this were to happen--and I’m not guaranteeing it will happen--it would be the first example of its kind,” Fay said. “You’re talking about a cutting-edge exercise, if we decide to do it.”

The deadline for the federal decision on whether to grant endangered species protection to the gnatcatcher is March 17. The 4 1/2-inch gray songbird, one of the tiniest birds in North America, nests in sagebrush found in the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Much of the bird’s habitat is found on coastal land prime for development.

In the peninsula city of Rancho Palos Verdes, developers want to build an 18-hole golf course and an upscale coastal bluff subdivision on 260 acres, but the project is caught up in controversy over gnatcatcher habitat. Twice within the last year, the city has approved the project and each time conservationists have appealed to the California Coastal Commission, contending that the developers were savaging the coastal sage scrub, the songbirds’ natural habitat.

The developers and the city have gone back to the drawing boards, trying to find ways to preserve the natural areas where the birds nest that are acceptable to environmentalists and the Coastal Commission. The latest modifications to the project will be heard by the commission later this year.

The federal compromise would be good news--but not great news--for many of Southern California’s developers, including the Irvine Co., who are active in the Wilson Administration’s voluntary planning efforts to protect the bird’s habitat. The developers prefer that the gnatcatcher receive no federal protection, since they think that the bird is not imperiled and that current state and local efforts would guarantee its survival.

Environmentalists, however, said they are concerned such a special rule would not provide enough protection for the bird, which many biologists fear is on the verge of extinction.

“The gnatcatcher is endangered and it should be treated as such,” said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The compromise “would allow the service more flexibility in approving (development) projects. . . . I’m concerned about too much flexibility,” he said. “It would make it more difficult to get a court to step in if we felt they weren’t enforcing the law.”

Reynolds said he was contacted last week by Jeff Opdycke, manager of the federal wildlife agency’s Southern California office, who asked him how environmentalists would view the compromise. Lawyers for developers were also contacted by the federal agency.

If the federal government declares the gnatcatcher endangered, there is no flexibility allowed in the law. Every development that impacts its habitat would have to go through time-consuming, expensive planning and permitting processes that could halt or delay projects for years. But under the compromise idea, if developers agree to set aside land, they could avoid such delays.

The idea of coming up with special rules to protect some species while easing the burden on developers has been discussed for several years at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s headquarters in Washington.

The timing for implementing it may be right, since top Clinton Administration officials emphasize that compromise is necessary to protect the environment and the economy.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt told a congressional committee last week that preventive planning is a top priority because it would protect species while averting the need to list them as endangered, which he said causes “an economic train wreck.”

The wildlife agency must decide, however, if the gnatcatcher is in too much peril for a flexible approach. “That’s the critical question,” Fay said.