Latest News Stories


Los Angeles Times
Inland Valley July 19, 2001
Rene Luna /

Project draws fire over habitat loss

  • Environmental group threatens to sue over development in Rancho

RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- An environmental organization vowed Wednesday to sue the developer of a 248-acre gated, upscale residential development at the top of Etiwanda Avenue after the city approved the project.

City Council members unanimously approved the 632-home project late Wednesday. The Pasadena-based Spirit of the Sage Council is the environmental organization threatening to fight the project in court.

Federal biologists say the site's sage is a "critical habitat" for the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, a small gray-blue songbird. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering declaring the property a critical habitat for the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The project's backers plan to set aside one acre for each acre of sage destroyed and $110,000 for the management of the preserved land. Fish and Wildlife officials have asked that five acres be preserved for each one cleared of sage.

"I think it's really nice that Fish and Wildlife wants to claim all the foothills a critical habitat but they don't want to pay for it," project manager Ben Anderson said.

Anderson argued that four years of studies showed neither the gnatcatcher nor the kangaroo rat use the site.

Of added concern to area biologists is the North Etiwanda Preserve just north of the project. The preserve was established to replace a natural habitat was destroyed to make way for Highway 30.

In comments submitted on the project, biologist Robin Ikeda of Chaffey College wrote that an equestrian center planned for the development would increase horse traffic in the North Etiwanda Preserve. And keeping horses out, she said, would be "virtually unenforceable" and lead to the propagation of nonnative plants throughout the preserve.

She added that a million-gallon water storage tank proposed for the project might drain water from underground tunnels that supply a bog on the preserve, further damaging the preserve's plant life.

She encouraged more study before the project goes forward. But Anderson argued that Ikeda's concerns are unfounded.

Since the proposed neighborhood is gated and private, it will discourage public access to the preserve, Anderson said.

"We have a very small portion which is next to the preserve," he said. "It's only a couple of hundred feet."

The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project was part of the massive 1,111-acre University/Crest project approved by the county in 1991. The county combined two projects -- one owned by the Regents of the University of California and one by Caryn Development Company -- to ensure comprehensive planning, documents on file with the city show.

The city sued the county to challenge environmental studies of the project. The suit was settled but the combined project languished.

The remaining University/Crest project was separated into two plots and sold. Irvine-based Suncal purchased the University part of the Rancho Etiwanda project, which is under construction.

A & J Resources Inc. of Alhambra bought the Crest portion that's north of the university property. A & J's land is in the county but the city took over reviewing it after the city moved to annex the property on behalf of the developer, said Sal Salazar, associate planner for the city.

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

Published Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:00:00 AM
Chris Ehrlich (909) 483-9347

Rancho Cucamonga
Housing development approved by council

The City Council on Wednesday approved a major housing development adjacent the North Etiwanda Preserve.
The council voted 5-0 to approve the 240-acre, 632-home development by Alhambra-based A&J Resources generally north of 25th Street between Day Creek Channel and East Avenue.
Representatives of the environmental groups Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust gave testimony opposing approval. The groups plan to sue the city, in part, for inadequate circulation and distribution of environmental impact report documents.
Sal Salazar, a city associate planner, said that the city properly mailed various environmental impact report documents by certified mail.
Councilman Paul Biane said he supported city staff's recommendation for approval and stated that the council could not deal with issues of litigation Wednesday.

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin © 2001

Published Friday, June 8, 2001 12:00:00 AM
By Chris Ehrlich, Staff Writer

Sides debate over Rancho Cucamonga housing plan

RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Environmental advocates Thursday denounced conservation measures recommended for a major proposed housing development bordering the 760-acre North Etiwanda Preserve.
Local and regional conservationists attended a meeting of the North Etiwanda Preserve District at West Valley Superior Court where they called for fewer homes in the proposed 632-home Rancho Etiwanda Estates project and a larger buffer zone between the county-owned preserve and development.
The conservationists claimed such changes are needed to reduce human disruption of the preserve's natural habitats.
"We don't think that environmental concerns have been adequately addressed on this development," said Kate Kramer, a regional botanist with the California Department of Fish and Game. "We don't oppose projects; we just want to have impacts addressed."
San Marino-based A&J Resources will put its Rancho Etiwanda Estates general plan before the city's Planning Commission next Wednesday.
A&J and the city ultimately want the development land to be annexed, said Ben Anderson, spokesman for A&J Resources. The land is presently unincorporated and in the city's sphere of influence.
The development's distance from the preserve varies, said city associate planner Sal Salazar. The development touches the preserve at one corner and is up to about 450 feet from the preserve at other points, he said.
The development plan includes a fully gated, private community and would move the proposed Day Creek Boulevard south, farther from the preserve, Anderson said.
"I don't know what adverse effects there are on the preserve," Anderson said. "We don't circulate anything up there, and unless somebody wants to jump the fence, we're not going to provide any access to it (the preserve)."
Conservationists insisted development would destroy 247 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, one of California's rarest plant communities, according to Diana Cosand, a biology professor at Chaffey College and Preserve District board member.
"It will increase the devastation of native habitat on the preserve, if the development is built," Cosand said "The preserve contains a really rare plant community."
A&J Resources would purchase approximately one acre of land to set aside for preservation for each acre of land it develops, or 250 acres, Anderson said. A&J would turn over preservation land to governmental or nonprofit bodies and fund the land management, he said.
Conservationists at the meeting said they believe the environmental impact report on the development recently conducted by Riverside-based LSA Associates does not provide enough environmental impact mitigation measures.
The city commissioned the independent party to conduct the report that is a part of the development's general plan, Salazar said.
Anderson said no endangered animal species are on the preserve and that A&J has conducted a series of such environmental surveys.

Interior's HCP 5-Point Policy Plan

Conservations Program Director
Spirit of the Sage Council

May 4, 1999

Chief LaVerne Smith
Division of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Rm. 452
Arlington, VA 22203 VIA FAX (703) 358-1735

Re: Federal Register, pps 11485 - 11490, March 9, 1999.
Docket No. 981208299-8299-01. HCP 5-Point Policy Plan

Chief Smith,

Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) is a non-profit grassroots project and coalition of Native Americans, wildlife advocates, scientists, educators, businesses and citizens dedicated to defending and conserving America’s Natural Heritage.

Since 1991, the Sage Council and our members have actively been involved in conserving plants, fish and wildlife, including the ecosystems upon which they depend. We have been intimately involved with numerous Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits (HCPs/ITPs), as well as Multi-Species/Multi-Habitat Programs and the State of California’s "Natural Communities Conservation Planning" (NCCP) program." Such involvement by the Sage Council in the "HCP Process" has not necessarily been welcomed by representatives of the State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game or by local governments, resource extractive industries and private interest groups. We are not welcomed, primarily because we seek the conservation of threatened and endangered of species through the enforcement of the ESA and implementation of sound scientific methods.

Our seven years of on-the-ground experience with HCP/ITPs has revealed to us that Section 10 of the ESA (HCPs/ITPs) has little or nothing to do about the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Rather, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have abused this section of the Act by conceding to the desires of Captains of Industry and private profiteers that are robbing our nation’s ecological treasure chest.

A clear example of how the Department of Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), including the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), succumbs to the political pressures and threats by industry lobbyists and private interests is reflected in the exparté meetings that were held in D.C. regarding the Services proposed "No Surprises" rule (see the attached meeting minutes).

While representatives of DOI/FWS and DOC/NMFS meet privately with industry thugs and their legal counsel, the government ignores expert commentary by hundreds of world renowned conservation biologists, scientists, academia and others that have warned that No Surprises will further the risk of species extinction.

As you are aware, the Sage Council has brought forth legal challenges to the No Surprises policy and the No Surprises rule. Our nationwide educational campaign regarding HCP/ITPs and No Surprises assurances has successfully brought to light the Services failure to implement Section 10 appropriately.

The Sage Council is greatly disappointed by the Secretaries and Services latest ploy and scheme. The proposed "HCP 5 point policies" as referenced can not even be considered a concession to the conservation community and the conservation of our nation’s wildlife.

Because these "policies" are not legally enforceable, the Sage Council is not going to waste our limited time and funds in providing the Services with any lengthy commentary. Rather, we encourage you and your superiors to "get real." Throwing a bare bone (policies) to an angry dog will not appease it anymore than giving a hungry shark a bunch of carrots (incentives).

The Sage Council reminds you and the Services that you have the responsibility to uphold the public trust by conserving our nation’s plants, fish and wildlife, including the ecosystems upon which they depend (public trust resources and lands). It is the Service "duty to conserve." It is not the Services duty to negotiate the law or dispose of it through "policies."

The Sage Council would like to bring to the Secretaries and Services attention to the fact that corporate land holders do not have constitutional rights in regards to "takings" of private property. "[c]orporations may not possess fundamental rights." (Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 57 F.3d 505, 26 ELR 20445 (7th Cir. 1995))

When the Secretaries and Service cowtail to the threats of corporations, industry groups and their legal counsels (e.g. The Irvine Company, National Reality Committee, International Council of Shopping Centers, Weyerhauser, Plum Creek Timber, American Forest and Paper Association, Beveridge & Diamond, Perkins Coie and others), the Secretaries and Services are betraying the "public trust" of " We the People." Corporations have at the very most privileges, but they "may not possess fundamental rights. Constitutional rights are "reserved" for "We the People."

The Sage Council also reminds the Secretaries and Services that our nation’s plants, fish and wildlife are not "privately" owned. The only land "owners" in the United States are "We the People" and Sovereign First Nations (Native Americans). The federal and State governments have been given the "duty" and "public trust" by "We the People" to conserve our plants, fish and wildlife. The purpose of U.S. Department of the Interior is conserve public trust lands and public trust resources. As you may be aware, § 10.05 The Public Trust Doctrine was successfully applied in California in order to protect Mono Lake (National Audubon v. Superior Court).

The Sage Council expects that the Service may receive some commentary by conservation organization on the referenced "HCP 5-point policy plan" as to "fixing" section 10. The opinion of the Sage Council is that Congress must rescind Section 10 HCP/ITPs by amending the ESA. Until such time, the Service must implement the ESA without skipping any administrative procedure (i.e. the Service must designate critical habitat, provide and implement a recovery plan PRIOR to accepting or approving ITP applications and HCPs. Section 10 HCP/ITPs are an exception from section 9 ONLY and not section 4 recovery requirements. Regardless of the section 10 exception to "take," the U.S. Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Sweet Home has still upheld the previous decision in TVA v. Hill that the goal and purpose of the ESA is,

    "[t]o halt and reverse the trend towards species extinction, whatever the cost."

In conclusion and in closing, the Sage Council finds that the Secretaries and Services are committing fraud and deliberately misleading "We the People" in putting forth the referenced HCP 5-Policy Plan and continuing to issue ITPs to corporations. To correct such violations of the public trust, the Sage Council recommends that the Secretaries and Services immediately revoke ALL ITPs that have been issued to corporations and those individuals that have not demonstrated a "hardship" pursuant to §17.63.

For the Wild Earth

Groups Back Challenge to Wildlife Plan

By DEBORAH SCHOCH, Times Staff Writer
Thursday, February 25, 1999
Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

In what could signal a widening fissure between conservationists and landowners over how to save rare wildlife, several national environmental groups have come out in support of a court challenge to a key piece of a much-hailed plan to balance growth and conservation in Southern California.

Strongly supported by U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, that plan is part of a new national effort to bring together environmentalists, regulators and governments to set aside land for rare plants and animals. It led to the 1996 creation of a 37,000-acre preserve in central and coastal Orange County, and now-stalled attempts to create a second preserve in South County. More than 230 other plans have taken shape nationwide.

But the notion of a peace pact between conflicting interests was tarnished this week when the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and six other groups filed a brief supporting a lawsuit against Babbitt and the Interior Department. The suit, led by the Pasadena-based Spirit of the Sage Council, challenges a crucial part of that deal that gives landowners special assurances.

That provision is the so-called "no surprises" policy, which is intended to give builders, timber companies and other landowners assurances that unexpected new rules will not be imposed on them if they enter into a habitat pact such as the Irvine Co. did in Orange County.

Signifying the potential importance of the Sage Council case, the Orange County government has intervened on behalf of Babbitt and the Interior Department. The Irvine Ranch Water District, the city of San Diego and the county of San Diego also have intervened.

"It's sort of a deal-is-a-deal approach," said Marc Ebbin, formerly Babbitt's special assistant and now an attorney with the law firm Beveridge & Diamond, which is representing Orange County in the case.

"The Interior Department has managed to set aside millions of acres of private land due to this policy," said Ebbin, who helped draft the "no surprises" policy while with the department.

The policy, crafted in 1994, assures landowners that if they enter into habitat pacts, they will not face changing rules if a plant or animal later spirals toward extinction. Instead, the government will step in.

Some are dubious that the federal government can pick up the tab if plants or animals unexpectedly begin nearing extinction. But Orange County planning official Tim Neely defended the local habitat pact, saying the federal government can require special steps by the landowner under "extraordinary circumstances" as defined by the pact.

Court OK’s Oak Valley With Future Environmental Review

CONTACT - Leeona Klippstein 626-744-9932
Conservation Director, Spirit of the Sage Council

Today, March 1, 1999, Judge Dallas Holmes of Riverside issued his decision from the State Superior Court as to whether the City of Calimesa violated the California Environmental Quality. According to that decision, the City of Calimesa will be required to perform additional environmental review in the future as each phase of the 6,700 acre Oak Valley project moves forward over the next 30 years.

However, the Court did not agree with the plaintiffs, Spirit of the Sage Council a non-profit Native American wildlife organization, that Calimesa should have required the developer to perform additional biological studies and a new Environmental Impact Report upfront. Judge Holmes’ decision also failed to recognize the need for the City and developers to address newly listed species now rather than later.

"The problem that we see with the Courts decision is that it is allowing an incremental encroachment on the environment and a sort of piecemeal analysis over the next 30 years. The Sage Council still feels strongly that the the environment impacts need to be addressed upfront. The public needs to know the effects of road building and increased traffic, as well as water extraction and loss of open space. Residents of Calimesa and Southern California need to have the cumulative effects of the entire Oak Valley project addressed and mitigated for -- right now and not just later on." Stated Leeona Klippstein, conservation director of the Sage Council.

One of the claims that the Pasadena based, Spirit of the Sage Council claimed was that there was new changes in the environmental impacts since 1990. In particular, the Sage Council pointed out the new listing of several endangered species including the Coastal California gnatcatcher, Quino Checkerspot butterfly and San Bernardino Kangaroo rat. Nevertheless, even with the four recent sitings of the California gnatcatcher, a small songbird, known to occur within the Oak Valley project area, the court was unable to use that information when making the decision because the sitings of the endangered bird came after the project was approved and was not in the administrative record before the Court.

    "[t]here is no specific evidence in the record showing that any newly listed species actually exist on the project site, or that the project will have any additional impacts on newly listed species." stated Judge Holmes’ decision.


But according to the Sage Council "The decision by Judge Holmes doesn’t prevent the Sage Council or anyone else from legally challenging the Oak Valley project under the Endangered Species Act or National Environmental Quality Act." Prior to Judge Holme’s decision the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stepped in and required that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Oak Valley Partners prepare an Environmental Impact Statement because of endangered species occurring along San Timeteo and Noble Creek that run through the area. The developer had tried to get approval through a Nationwide Clean Water Act permit, but the importance of protecting sensitive riparian habitat put the project on hold. "I believe Oak Valley Partners knows that it’s more than just stream-side habitat that will have to be conserved. It’s public knowledge that the California gnatcatcher uses the adjoining habitat areas -- so they will have to apply to Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit to "take" threatened and endangered species. That permitting process should require a full environmental analysis upfront rather than the incremental approach that Judge Holmes ok’ed. The Sage Council will watchdog the Fish and Wildlife Service throughout the permitting process and hopefully their decisions will be based on sound science rather than local politics." stated the Sage Council’s spokesperson.

Conservation Plans, HCPs:
Study Says Plans Lack Science, Fail to Predict Potential Harm

Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, February 16 1999

WASHINGTON (AP) Habitat conservation plans, which swap landowner cooperation for flexibility in Endangered Species Act protections, often lack the scientific data needed to determine how they will work, according to the first expansive study of HCPs. The federally negotiated plans allow non-federal landowners to harm some plant and animal species and their habitat in the course of developing or otherwise using their land. In return, the landowner takes steps that are supposed to leave the species better in the long run, such as relocating animals or setting aside land elsewhere for habitat.

The government has approved 246 HCPs covering 11.5 million acres, and nearly half the acreage is in the western states of Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. Thirteen other states, mainly in the South, also have HCPs.

In the 18-month study, a coalition of students and advisers at eight universities examined 208 HCPs that had been approved by August 1997, and considered 43 of them in depth. While the scientists found federal agencies did a good job with available data, they concluded that plan authors often lacked important information.

As a result, HCP drafters sometimes rely on unproven methods when outlining moves intended to help species. Some plans also lacked data on the impact of landowners' activities, or on how many creatures might be harmed by an activity, the researchers said.

"If we do not know whether one-half or one-hundredth of a species' total population is being affected by an action, it is hard to make scientifically justified decisions," the report said.

The study is "a call to arms to get the better data to make better decisions," said Peter Kareiva, the former University of Washington zoology professor who led the study.

Kareiva has since taken a job at the National Marine Fisheries Service, which, along with the Fish and Wildlife Service, oversees HCPs. The study, by 106 graduate students and 13 faculty advisers, was sponsored by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California-Santa Barbara and the American Institute of Biological Sciences in Washington, D.C.

Some environmentalists said the findings raise questions as to whether the government is living up to its obligation under the Endangered Species Act.

"It validates the position we've had since 1993," said Leeona Klippstein, conservation director for the California environmental group Spirit of the Sage.

"HCPs do nothing for conservation of the species, they just provide for development plans to go forward." The Clinton administration should slow down HCP approvals until it determines that sound scientific standards were used to create existing ones, said Daniel Hall, director of the forest biodiversity program of the American Lands Alliance in Portland, Ore. "We want them to clean up their act," Hall said.

The administration defends the plans, contending they are based on the best available science, as required by law. HCPs are "the biggest success story" of the Endangered Species Act, and have private landowners "standing in line" to participate, said spokeswoman Stephanie Hanna at the Interior Department, which includes Fish and Wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife last month released a written rebuttal to the study. The agency said the scientists used "questionable methodology" when they employed a standard analysis for HCPs that are vastly different from one another in size and scope.

"We definitely stand by the HCPs that have been approved thus far," said Mary Beth Woulfe, a Fish and Wildlife biologist.

The study says HCPs are improving, noted the Foundation for Habitat Conservation, a non-profit group founded by eight timber companies with HCPs.

"We don't want to give up the good to achieve the perfect," said Robert J. Jirsa, the group's president and an executive at Seattle-based Plum Creek Timber Co.

There's never a case where we'll have enough science to keep everyone happy."

No one disputes that HCPs are growing in number and giving companies and governments more leeway on turf occupied by critters such as the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, the Pacific pocket mouse and the Southwestern arroyo toad.

Fish and Wildlife last month approved the biggest HCP yet _ a plan that covers 5 million acres owned by Purchase, N.Y.-based International Paper. The land includes habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Plum Creek, which already has an HCP that covers more than 169,000 acres in Washington state, is crafting another HCP that would cover 1.6 million acres in Washington, Idaho and Montana that includes bull-trout habitat.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt made the plans more attractive in 1994 by adding "no surprises" clauses, which guarantee the government won't change conditions of HCPs for a specific period – even if the situation becomes more dire for a species. Most clauses last about 30 years, although some cover 100 years and others just a few.

The promise of "no surprises" clearly enhanced the appeal of HCPs for landowners. While Congress created HCPs in 1982 as an amendment to the Endangered Species Act, nearly all the plans – 232 – have been approved since 1994 and 200 more are in the pipeline.

Some environmentalists are hoping to invalidate the vast majority of HCPs with a legal challenge of the "no surprises" clauses. A lawsuit filed last summer in Washington, D.C., contends that the clauses violate the Endangered Species Act, and that Babbitt overstepped his authority in authorizing them.

"There's a lot riding on the court case," said Klippstein, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On Feb. 5, in an indication of the case's high stakes, District Judge Emmet Sullivan allowed a dozen industry groups – including the American Forest and Paper Association and the National Association of Homebuilders – and local governments to intervene as parties.

Marc Ebbin, a San Francisco attorney who represents four California intervenors – the city of San Diego, San Diego County, Orange County and the Irvine Ranch Water District – said a victory by the plaintiffs could discourage dozens of local governments from pursuing HCPs.

His clients "have invested an enormous amount of time, resources and effort in putting these plans together," Ebbin said. "It's really an important thing to make this approach work."

PRESS RELEASE - 10/24/98

Industry Groups Make Their Move to Intervene
on Endangered Species "No Surprises" Lawsuit

Contact: Leeona Klippstein, (626)744-9932
Conservation Director

Spirit of the Sage Council (CA)

Since August of 1994, when the Clinton Administration announced their 10 Point Policy Change to implementing the Endangered Species Act on privately held lands, the environmental and scientific community have united in opposition. Over 300 scientists nationwide and 400 wildlife conservation organizations have publicly opposed the most radical of all the policy changes known as "No Surprises" guarantees.

The country's most recognized conservation biologists and academics have stated that the "No Surprises" change to the Act would place endangered species at further risk of extinction because the policy does not allow for future management changes to habitat reserves when needed. Because the Earth and ecosystems are dynamic the plants, animals and fish must be allowed to move with environmental changes that are expected and unexpected -- such as fires, floods and weather changes.

However, some of the country's largest and most politically influential land holders have lobbied for "No Surprises" guarantees arguing that "a deal is a deal" and that they do not want to be held accountable for species survival and recovery in the future. Once a land holder has agreed to set aside a small portion of endangered species habitat in what is referred to as a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP, they expect to receive a "No Surprises" guarantee that they can destroy the remaining habitat acres and kill endangered species through the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Spirit of the Sage Council, a grassroots nonprofit Native American organization based in Pasadena, California, has been the leader in the movement to stop the federal governments use of No Surprises guarantees and issuance of permits. In 1996 the Sage Council and co-plaintiffs, with assistance from the DC law office of Meyer & Glitzenstein, filed a legal challenge that forced the federal government to allow public comment on the No Surprises policy.

In 1998, the Sage Council, along with a covy of other grassroots conservation organizations throughout the west, The Humane Society of the United States and the National Endangered Species Network, took to the courts again to challenge the No Surprises guarantees to private land holders.

Although discussions continue between legal counsel, for the Sage Council and co-plantiffs, with the US Justice Department regarding the time schedule for court hearings, industry lobbying groups have filed motions to intervene in the case.

"Within the last few weeks, we've had two industry groups intervene -- the Western Urban Water Coalition and the National Association of Home Builders along with various cohorts." stated Leeona Klippstein, the Sage Council's conservation director.

"Our attorneys, Eric Glitzenstein and Jon Lovvorn, have filed extensive oppositions to both motions, arguing that there is no reason why they need to intervene, since the federal government can adequately defend its No Surprises rule. These legal moves by industry groups are just another indication of corporate interests trying to dominate government decision making as well as our natural heritage."

Additional Contacts
More on our No Surprises Suit…
Legal Counsel
    Eric Glitzenstein and Jon Lovvorn (202) 588-5206
    Meyer & Glitzenstein
    Dean Keddy-Hector, Staff Scientist (512) 858-1732
    National Endangered Species Network (TX)
    Jasper Carlton, Director (303) 442-3037
    Biodiversity Legal Foundation
Pacific Northwest
    Felice Pace, Director (530) 467-5405
    (Northern Calif. & Oregon)
    Klamath Forest Alliance