Tougher Rules Sought to Save Ecological Sites : Development: Edelman says the county has failed to protect plant and animal life areas singled out in 1980.

A program designed to preserve 61 areas designated as the most ecologically valuable land in Los Angeles County has failed to protect them from development and needs strengthening, Supervisor Ed Edelman said Tuesday.

Edelman recommended to the Board of Supervisors that prospective developers be required to provide additional environmental and biological studies of zones that are designated Significant Ecological Areas. He also proposed that the county be allowed to choose the biologists who do the studies, rather than the developer, as is now permitted.

“This would give some teeth to our SEAs. Otherwise they don’t mean anything,” Edelman said.

The SEAs were chosen in 1980 by county planners because they contain important populations of Southern California plants and animals. Some development is allowed in SEAs, but a Times investigation last year reported that more of the land had been lost to development than was anticipated.

Of the 61 SEAs identified in 1980, only about half remain under county control; the others are located in areas that have become incorporated cities.

Edelman, uncertain of support from other supervisors, agreed to postpone a vote on his plan for 45 days while county planners take a closer look at what it will cost. Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who has defended the county’s SEAs program, had asked for a 60-day delay because of the unknown expenses.

Environmentalists who attended Tuesday’s board meeting hailed Edelman’s plan as evidence that the county was finally taking them seriously, but said they feared that the delay will lead to a watered-down proposal. Critics of the SEA review process have been particularly critical of the objectivity of the developer-hired biologists, calling them “biostitutes.”

Asenath Rasmussen, a biologist who studied the SEAs for the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group that buys and conserves land, said she was surprised to discover that “despite the best intentions of people in decision-making positions, the areas were being managed and developed in a manner that certainly was not conducive to their long-term survival.”

Representatives of developers who spoke to the board said they also have problems with the review process, chiefly that it is too lengthy. They said they were concerned the proposed changes would mean more meetings and paperwork.

“It’s already a very lengthy, lengthy process,” said Richard Wirth, head of the governmental affairs committee for the Building Industry Assn.

Edelman’s changes would require funds to pay the salary of a biologist he wants added to the county planning staff and the cost of using more newspaper advertising to woo people to meetings of the SEA Technical Advisory Committee, a panel that performs the initial review on development within SEAs. Some of the cost would be borne by developers.