U.S. Marks Habitats for Gnatcatcher

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed Friday designating nearly 800,000 acres throughout Southern California--including more than 97,000 acres in Orange County--as protected habitat for the threatened gnatcatcher.

The proposal would give federal wildlife authorities the power to scrutinize certain projects--such as the proposed Foothill South toll road--that could harm the coastal sagebrush where the California songbird typically makes its homes.

Although environmentalists have been pushing for such a move for seven years, many were displeased with Friday’s proposal, in part because there are no clear boundaries surrounding the proposed habitats.

“It’s basically smoke and mirrors,” said Andrew Wetzler, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which helped bring about the lawsuit that led to Friday’s proposal. “This is yet another example of fish and wildlife services basically doing everything possible to avoid complying with what is a very clear statute.”

Federal authorities, conceding that they only acted under the pressure of a court order, also criticized the proposal. The designation process is too costly, they said, especially since the California songbird already enjoys protected status.

“There is little additional benefit of designating critical habitat. When a species is listed [as endangered or threatened], a species is protected,” said Ken Berg, field supervisor with the service’s regional office in Carlsbad.

Much of the designated land in Orange County is in South County. Environmentalists hailed the move as another obstacle to the construction of the proposed 16-mile Foothill South toll road.

But toll road officials dismissed that, saying planners have long been working with federal officials.

“It’s certainly not an obstacle, it’s something we’ve been tracking to make sure we identify and apply all the rules,” said Lisa Telles, spokeswoman for the Transportation Corridor Agencies. “This doesn’t change our strategy.”

Under the proposal, any projects in critical habitat areas that receive federal funding or require federal regulatory approval--such as the proposed Foothill South toll road--would be scrutinized by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Authorities would have the power to ensure that the project did not adversely affect the birds’ habitat.

The plan sets aside 799,916 acres throughout Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, and would be in addition to existing wildlife preserves and other areas previously set aside as gnatcatcher habitat.

Some groups say that the plan is an important step forward if it can protect gnatcatcher habitat.

“It should have been done a long time ago,” said Dan Silver, coordinator of the Endangered Habitats League.

Next step for the proposal is a series of public hearings to be held this month in Anaheim, San Diego and Riverside. The Fish and Wildlife Service will also study the proposal’s economic effects and make a final decision in September.

In 1993, the gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened species, a designation that requires the federal government to act to protect the songbird’s habitat.

At the time, federal officials declined to set aside coastal sage scrub in Southern California amid reports that landowners were clearing their property to avoid having their land designated as critical gnatcatcher habitat.

Federal officials instead favored a “habitat conservation planning” approach, which allows developers to destroy protected plants and wildlife areas if they compensate by preserving similar habitats elsewhere.

Environmentalists sued, arguing that setting aside existing habitat was crucial to the gnatcatchers’ survival. They lost the first round of the legal battle, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor in 1997.

Environmentalists say the designation of the 799,916 acres isn’t specific enough. Federal officials say they lack the resources to detail every chunk of gnatcatcher habitat in Southern California, so they mapped out larger swaths of land, much of which includes already developed property.

“We’re not able to do that fine-scale delineation,” Berg said.

Therein lies the problem, according to environmentalists.

“The Endangered Species Act defines special habitat as specific areas--that’s the first two words of the definition,” Wetzler said.