Wildlife Reserve Plan Faces the Test of Public Opinion

The notion of creating a mammoth wildlife reserve in Orange County has been debated for years in Sacramento and Washington and the halls of academia.

Now, the actual plan for a 39,000-acre reserve system faces one of its sternest real-world tests: the scrutiny of county residents and lawmakers.

Driving that plan is the philosophy that if Orange County sets aside sufficient reserve land to protect rare plants and animals, participating developers can build on ecologically sensitive land outside the reserve boundaries.

What the next weeks will reveal is whether an approach hailed as a national model of compromise can indeed satisfy groups as diverse as the Irvine Co. and the Endangered Habitats League--or if the time-worn fissures dividing such groups are simply too wide to be bridged.

Some key environmentalists are still withholding endorsement, waiting to see if designers will agree to alter some controversial facets of the blueprint for a mosaic-like reserve stretching across the county’s central and coastal areas.

“We’ve got to resolve some of these major issues, or else we don’t have a guarantee it’s going to function,” said Elisabeth Brown, Laguna Greenbelt president and one environmentalist who took part in planning meetings.

Already, creators of the plan have been showered with dozens of letters raising questions as varied as whether a proposed reserve board is overloaded with landowners, if scientists should have been given a larger role in crafting its design and if it fails to protect a portion of Coal Canyon that some call an important corridor for mountain lions and other wildlife.

The 73 letters released by the county last week offer a taste of the dialogue that could lie ahead during reviews before the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, which could vote on the plan in early April.

The stakes are high for developers, conservationists and politicians alike. Orange County has become a key testing ground for this pioneering state effort called the Natural Community Conservation Planning program, which attempts to balance economic and environmental interests while taking a new approach to the Endangered Species Act.

In fact, the central/coastal reserve system, designed to protect 42 plants and animals--some rare, some more common--is poised to become the first major project of its kind approved nationwide.

“We want to make sure it’s done right, that it satisfies environmental concerns and development interests,” said Bill Tippets, a state Department of Fish and Game environmental specialist who has worked on the plan. “If it’s done right in Orange County, then we can show this process works and hope to apply it in other areas.”

Some find the hefty, four-volume draft plan to their liking.

“We believe the plan has a sound biological base and represents an extraordinary level of cooperation among local, regional, state and federal agencies and the environmental and development communities,” wrote Ronald E. Young, general manager of the Irvine Ranch Water District, which has been involved in the plan since 1993. He urged that the project “be completed in a timely manner,” noting that delays have already proved costly to plan participants.

Others worry that the county is rushing pell-mell into a plan without enough scientific review.

“We are concerned that this particular [plan] fails in its intent and spirit due to political-based decisions and policies set forth to facilitate special interest groups,” wrote Susan Gallaugher of the Sea & Sage chapter of the National Audubon Society.

Among the issues raised most frequently in the letters:

* Coal Canyon: Some contend that the plan does not protect a Coal Canyon area wildlife corridor that they call a crucial link for mountain lions and other mammals from the Chino Hills to the Santa Ana Mountains. The plan says an alternative corridor exists nearby, but some critics disagree.

“The NCCP is writing off the only known viable corridor for cougars and is relying on a speculative alternative,” writes scientist Paul Beier.

In fact, most of the handful of speakers at a Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday focused on Coal Canyon. Such corridors link wildlife populations and prevent inbreeding, said Clair Schlotterbeck, president of Hills for Everyone, a citizens’ group.

* Timeline: Although the reserve system would be established for 75 years, with extensions allowed, some argue it should exist in perpetuity.

* Oversight: The reserve would be overseen by a nonprofit corporation made up of public landowners and managers, participating private landowners, the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the program’s early years, an experienced nonprofit habitat manager such as the Nature Conservancy could be included in a nonvoting capacity, suggests the draft report. Some who wrote letters believe the board should include scientists or members of the public.

* Pocket mouse: The plan would include provisions for the rare Pacific pocket mouse, added to the federal endangered species list in 1994 after some mice were found in the area of a proposed development on the Dana Point Headlands. The land is owned by the M.H. Sherman Co. and by Chandis Securities Inc., which oversees financial holdings of the Chandler family and is a major stockholder in Times Mirror Co., publisher of The Times.

The plan gives agencies eight years to study the mice and discusses relocating them, an approach that has drawn criticism from some environmentalists and scientists. David Harlow, Fish and Wildlife Service deputy state supervisor, said last week that some misunderstanding has arisen. “We need to clarify what the federal government intends to do in terms of the pocket mouse,” he said.

County and federal officials are now preparing responses to questions raised in the letters and hope to finish by the end of February.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft plan, reporting that more information should be included to support its findings but, on balance, applauding its concept of preserving habitats.

“Overall, we think it’s a very, very good approach,” said Laura Fujii of the EPA regional office. “It seems to make sense.”