Letter in Support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Safe Harbor" Program

Posted: 23-Jul-1997; Updated: 02-Jul-2003

July 23, 1997

Ms. E. Laverne Smith, Chief
Division of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Ms. Smith,

We are writing to express our support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Safe Harbor" program as a practical and necessary way to encourage the restoration and enhancement of habitat by private landowners.

Our support for Safe Harbor is based on the fact that habitat destruction and degradation are among the greatest threats to the long-term survival of most endangered species. It is essential, therefore, that efforts be made to restore and enhance the habitats of endangered species. Depending upon the species and habitats in question, proactive management could include removing invasive, exotic species, restoring fire by prescribed burning, restoring hydrological conditions, or restoring native flora and fauna to provide additional food and cover. As a practical matter, it is clear to us that the Endangered Species Act cannot compel landowners to undertake such actions; they must choose to do so. Unfortunately, many landowners who might be willing to manage their property in ways that enhance its value for endangered species are unwilling to do so because they fear that success in attracting endangered species will mean additional restrictions on the use of their property. (Indeed, we have heard reports of farmers plowing fields they would rather leave fallow and forest owners cutting trees prematurely in order to prevent them from being colonized by endangered species.) The Safe Harbor program removes this disincentive by assuring landowners who agree to enhance their property for the benefit of endangered species that they will not incur additional restrictions on the use of that property for doing so.

We are aware that some scientists have expressed concern that Safe Harbor properties will act as "sinks," drawing populations of endangered species away from existing, protected areas. In our opinion, such scenarios are highly unlikely to occur in the vast majority of cases. In fact, habitat restoration through the Safe Harbor program is far more likely to improve the survival prospects for endangered species by increasing population sizes, increasing connectivity between populations, and buffering protected areas. For this reason, we do not hesitate to endorse the program. However, to assess the success or failure of individual Safe Harbor agreements, we recommend that a sound monitoring program be incorporated into all agreements.

Some Safe Harbor agreements include long-term management of the "baseline" (currently occupied, protected) habitat. In the Sandhills of North Carolina, for example, Safe Harbor agreements for the red-cockaded woodpecker have been written that include not only restoration of degraded habitat, but also active management of existing, baseline forests to ensure continued suitability for the woodpecker. We strongly support such provisions because, in many cases, even protected habitats can become unsuitable with time unless exotic species are controlled or the proper successional stages are maintained. Because such steps have not been required of landowners under the Endangered Species Act, Safe Harbor provides a vehicle for accomplishing these needed actions.

For all of these reasons, we believe the Safe Harbor program is a valuable tool in the conservation and recovery of endangered species.

Sincerely,

Professor Jane Lubchenco
Oregon State University

Also signing this letter:

Professor P. Dee Boersma
University of Washington

Professor Andrew Dobson
Princeton University

Professor Paul R. Ehrlich

Stanford University

Professor Thomas Eisner
Cornell University

Professor Malcolm Hunter, Jr
University of Maine

Professor Frances James
Florida State University

Dr. Lloyd Kiff
The Peregrine Fund