O.C.’s Patience Aids Gnatcatcher Plan : * Efforts Help Boost Habitat Set-Aside Experiment

Six months ago, Gov. Pete Wilson’s plan to enlist developers, government agencies and environmentalists in a unique five-county experiment to protect California gnatcatcher habitat seemed doomed. Orange County has not always been at the forefront of environmental protectionism, but this time in a gesture of enlightened self-interest, some important players in county development embraced the set-aside proposal as an alternative to endangered species listing for the small bird, and helped rescue the program.

A wise move. Today, the campaign by the state Resources Agency calling for voluntary set-asides of tracts of land as habitat for the California gnatcatcher has a second wind and is pressing onward, in part because Orange County, like its neighbor San Diego County, has agreed to be patient during the 18 months the program is assembled.

It is not so elsewhere. Another Orange County neighbor, Riverside County, has viewed the set-aside proposal warily. It hasn’t accepted a voluntary moratorium on development in designated areas containing coastal sage scrub. Now the state is resorting to the “stick” approach in that county. It’s currently pressing for authority to evaluate development in critical acreage during the period the so-called Natural Community Conservation Planning program is put together.

The obvious patience this process requires of the voluntary participants is the very thing that might spare them the hassle later of dealing with species listing. As Carol Whiteside, assistant secretary for the Resources Agency, points out, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is indeed watching. It is expected to render a decision next month on whether to list the gnatcatcher. It could be persuaded against listing by adequate regulatory and protective mechanisms--specifically a successful conservation planning program.

Things didn’t always look so bright. Earlier this year, a coalition of environmental groups petitioned for immediate listing for the gnatcatcher on the grounds that thousands of acres of habitat were at risk. The service, in agreeing to consider the petition, noted that large amounts of habitat had disappeared. This, coupled with the resignation of the Natural Resources Defense Council from a panel trying to agree on a strategy for the set-aside plan, seemed to spell trouble.

Now, the governor’s people acknowledge that they were trying to make too many complicated decisions too fast, and in a highly charged political environment.

Orange County did its part in May when it was able to sign up thousands of acres of privately owned coastal sage scrub in a moratorium on development. The county’s three largest developers, the Irvine Co., Rancho Mission Viejo Co. and the Arvida Co. also agreed to fund scientific surveys.

The plan is not a cure-all for overdevelopment, but it can mitigate it. Whether or not all the intended counties come on board during the planning period, it will be a hopeful model for enlisting diverse groups in environmental preservation.