n the three decades since the Endangered Species Act became law, 

we've become more aware of the crucial role landowners play as stewards 

of our country's natural resources. According to Precious Heritage, a report 

by The Nature Conservancy and the Association for Biodiversity Information 

(now NatureServe), two-thirds of the species federally listed as endangered

or threatened have habitat on private land. Most landowners are good 

stewards of the land. They're not just reaping the benefits of the land; 

they also care about the land itself. 

The purpose of this brochure is to introduce some of the landowners who 

are using two innovative conservation tools: Safe Harbor Agreements and 

Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances. Although these tools 

only came into use within the last decade, and many landowners are not yet 

familiar with them, they already have demonstrated benefits for both 

landowners and imperiled species.

A brief explanation of how these conservation tools work and how they 

can benefit landowners follows, but more can be learned about the agreements from the participating landowners themselves, a few of whom are 

profiled in this document. These pages introduce only a tiny segment of 

the diverse group of landowners currently participating in these programs. 

They range from residential landowners who own only an acre to large 

corporations with thousands of acres. They include private forest 

owners, ranchers, and golf course operators. What they have 

in common is a willingness to lend a hand 

to imperiled wildlife while continuing 

to manage their land.

Texas rancher Bob Long (at right) 

lent a helping hand to the endangered 

Houston toad under a Safe Harbor Agreement.

Since successfully restoring ponds on his

property, he's heard the male toads calling 

to the females. 

© John Rae

USFWS Photo

USFWS Photo

Photograph courtesy of Jenny Lord, USFWS

This brochure was produced using environmentally-friendly vegetable dyes, and was printed on bio-degradable, recycled, and recyclable paper.

1.
The basic idea behind Safe Harbor Agreements is to help private and other non-federal landowners conserve threatened and endangered species on a voluntary basis in exchange for legal

assurances from the Fish and Wildlife Service that no new Endangered Species Act-related restrictions will be placed on the use of their land as a result of their voluntary beneficial measures.

Like Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances are 

designed to provide incentives to landowners willing to make a voluntary commitment 

to aid imperiled species. Again, as is the case with the Safe Harbor program, a CCAA 

participant can be any non-federal landowner, such as a private landowner, a local or 

state agency, a tribal government, or a non-governmental organization. 

Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances target species that are candidates

for listing or are likely to be candidates for listing in the near future. The ultimate goal 

is to conserve these species so they no longer need protection under the ESA. Candidate 

species are defined by the Service as species for which there is enough information to 

support a listing proposal, but which have not yet been proposed due to higher priority 

listing activities. Species likely to become candidate or proposed species in the near 

future also are eligible to be addressed in a CCAA.

An increasing awareness of three basic facts 

led to the creation of the Safe Harbor approach: 

Private landowners are crucial for the recovery 

of endangered species that occur mostly or even

solely on privately owned land.

Most landowners are good stewards of their 

land, and they don’t want their species conservation efforts to result in more legal restrictions 

on how they can use their land.

The ESA does much to prevent harm to 

endangered and threatened (listed) species, 

but until recent years it offered few incentives 

for landowners who want to help them. In fact, 

landowners who put out the welcome mat for

listed species were sometimes “rewarded”

with increased legal restrictions. In some 

difficult cases, landowners destroyed habitat 

for listed species to avoid potential restrictions 

on the use of their land. 

A Safe Harbor Agreement alleviates the perceived 

fear of increased restrictions by freezing the landowner’s ESA responsibility to the existing conditions 

(or baseline) present when the agreement is signed.

Depending on the species involved, the baseline may 

be determined by numbers of a listed animal and/or 

by acres of habitat. If the landowner’s voluntary 

actions will likely result in a net conservation benefit 

for the covered species, an ESA permit is issued that

enables the return of the enrolled property to baseline

conditions if the landowner chooses to do so. 

Under a CCAA, property owners voluntarily agree 

to take management actions that address specific

threats to a species on their land. The Service 

enters into an agreement when it determines that 

the benefits of these management actions, when

combined with benefits that would be achieved if

these actions also were taken on other necessary

properties, would preclude or remove the need to 

list the species under the ESA. In return, the Service

provides regulatory assurances that if the species 

is later listed as endangered or threatened, the

landowner’s responsibility to protect it will not go

beyond what is already specified in the agreement. 

In other words, a landowner’s obligation under 

the ESA is frozen at the level spelled out in the 

agreement. The terms of the CCAA, what management activities are required, and how long it will

remain in place vary depending on the species

involved and the landowner’s situation. CCAAs 

are an outgrowth of Candidate Conservation

Agreements, under which landowners voluntarily 

agree to management activities to help vulnerable

species. The added benefit is the regulatory 

assurances it provides to non-federal landowners. 

The CCAA policy and associated regulations were 

issued in 1999. 

As of March 2005, 10 CCAAs had been approved, 

covering 24 species, and others are being developed. Examples of species covered by these 

agreements include the southern Idaho ground 

squirrel, Washington ground squirrel, lesser prairiechicken, Oregon spotted frog, the Colorado River 

cutthroat trout, and the greater and lesser Adams 

Cave beetles.

The following websites offer more information 

about Safe Harbors and CCAAs:

http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/harborqa.pdf 

http://endangered.fws.gov/listing/cca.pdf

http://endangered.fws.gov/policy/ccaa.htm

http://endangered.fws.gov/policy/safe_har.htm

www.environmentaldefense.org/go/SafeHarbor/

The terms of the Safe Harbor Agreement, what 

management activities are appropriate, and how 

long it remains in effect vary according to the 

species involved and the landowner’s situation.

The non-profit organization Environmental Defense 

and the Service together developed the Safe Harbor

concept in the 1990s. The first agreement was 

signed in 1995 when landowners in the North 

Carolina Sandhills area agreed to manage longleaf pine forest lands to benefit the endangered 

red-cockaded woodpecker. The Service issued 

an official Safe Harbor policy in 1999.

By March 2005, more than 325 landowners had 

enrolled over 3.6 million acres in 31 Safe Harbor

Agreements. Another 60 agreements are under 

development. Over half of the Safe Harbor 

Agreements have several participating landowners, with a state agency, conservation group, 

or other entity holding the permit that allows 

landowners to receive Safe Harbor assurances. 

In other Safe Harbor Agreements, a single landowner works directly with the Service. Among 

the 35 listed species covered by Safe Harbor

Agreements are the northern aplomado falcon, 

red-cockaded woodpecker, California redlegged frog, San Joaquin kit fox, and Schaus 

swallowtail butterfly. 

•

•

•

Photograph courtesy of Dr. Thomas Emmel

© Derrick Hamrick Photograph courtesy of Moose Peterson, WRP

Photograph courtesy of Joe Hinson

Illustration courtesy of Carrie Straight Photograph courtesy of wildlifedepartment.com

San Joaquin kit fox

red-cockaded woodpecker

Schaus 

swallowtail butterfly

southern Idaho

ground squirrel

lesser prairie-chicken

2. robust redhorse 3.
“You don’t want to go there,” muses Mike Nichols, when asked how it all 

started. Nichols, the Georgia Power Company’s Environmental Laboratory 

Manager, faced a serious conundrum about 10 years ago: how could his employer 

get along with a recently discovered “mystery fish”? In 1991, state biologists discovered an 

unusual fish in central Georgia’s Oconee River. Its characteristics included reddish markings, 

a rotund body, and distinctive molar-like teeth. Follow-up research revealed that this rare 

species, now called the robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), existed in two other rivers 

in Georgia—rivers also used by a number of hydroelectric dams and other structures.

To discuss the fish’s uncertain future, a group of 

14 federal, state, industry, and non-governmental 

interests formed the Robust Redhorse Conservation

Committee. The robust redhorse gained statelisted endangered species status. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service then identified it as a candidate species, indicating a possible future listing 

under the federal Endangered Species Act.

With possible restrictions if federal listing were 

to occur, could a hydroelectric power producer, 

such as committee member Georgia Power, 

co-exist with an imperiled fish species? 

Although water quality has improved in recent years,

questions about the fish's long-term survival remain.

Hydroelectric dams need specific water flows and

reservoir capacity to ensure power production.

Structures and water withdrawals may limit access

to spawning sites or reduce available habitat. Could

catastrophic changes cause extinction? What water

flow rates must be ensured for survival? These were

important questions to consider as Committee goals

included establishing six populations across the 

historic range. Evans points out that introducing 

an aquatic species has unique considerations. 

“Fish have hundreds of miles of access and many 

potential stakeholders.”

To address landowner concerns, a new policy 

under consideration by the Service was introduced 

to the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee in

1996. While still unofficial, the draft CCAA policy

offered a way to provide regulatory assurances to

landowners, including significant stakeholders on

the Ocmulgee River, Georgia Power and the Lloyd

Shoals Dam. For Mike Nichols, such an agreement

was ideal. “Whoever wrote this could not have

come up with a better solution. Whenever you have

a rare species you want to conserve, you want

boundaries to the commitments should the species

be listed. It was a great fit for us.”

As Evans remembers, creating an agreement was 

not easy. Twists, turns, and repeated revisions 

followed the initial draft agreement submitted in 

1996 by Georgia Power. “We realized that we were

covering new territory,” says Nichols, “and that 

we had to go over several issues several times.” 

He points out it was all part of exploring innovative

ideas. The Robust Redhorse CCAA may serve as 

a model for other power companies.

Georgia Power continues to work with the Service,

Georgia DNR, and the Robust Redhorse Conservation

Committee as the introduction of this fish continues 

in the Ocmulgee River. Along with employee time,

Georgia Power has provided funding for research 

to determine preferred robust redhorse habitat, 

introduction criteria, and population estimates.

Additional support comes from environmental 

groups, the University of Georgia, the U.S.

Geological Survey, the Georgia DNR, and 

the Service. 

“I think it really is a major benefit to the state.

Georgia Power and DNR work well together on a 

variety of projects,” states Jimmy Evans as he lists

DNR contributions to the robust redhorse conservation

effort, including collecting brood fish, setting up 

temporary hatcheries, sampling, 

harvesting, tagging, monitoring, and 

providing administrative support. 

Georgia Power also supports propagation efforts in other state rivers 

and additional research into robust 

redhorse status and life history. 

For example, for optimal spawning 

conditions in the Oconee River, 

a new flow regime has been 

implemented at the Sinclair Dam.

Taking a positive approach to a possible dilemma,

Georgia Power signed a Candidate Conservation

Agreement with Assurances in 2002 with the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources and 

the Service. This agreement, the nation’s first 

for an aquatic species, serves as a model for 

conserving vulnerable species before the need 

to invoke the protective measures of the ESA.

A sampling team headed by Jimmy Evans, a fisheries

biologist for the Georgia DNR, first collected the 

robust redhorse more than a decade ago. “It was 

bizarre. How could a fish nearly 30 inches in length

and over 15 pounds exist undiscovered in some of 

the most heavily sampled rivers in the United States?” 

The robust redhorse was first discovered over 

a century ago. In 1869, famed naturalist Edward 

Cope observed a rotund, or robust, fish swimming 

in North Carolina’s Yadkin River. Inexplicably, 

notes and specimens, as well as knowledge of the

fish’s existence, disappeared for over a century.

Considering the effects of historical farming 

practices, researchers say the survival of the 

robust redhorse is surprising. Beginning in 

the late 19th century, deforestation and decades 

of subsequent erosion silted over gravel beds 

essential for robust redhorse reproduction. 

Illustration courtesy 

of Carrie Straight

Photograph courtesy of Jimmy Evans

Photograph courtesy of Jimmy Evans

Photograph courtesy of Jimmy Evans

4. 5.
Approximately half of all private timberland in Humboldt County, California,

is managed under uneven-aged silviculture strategies, forestry practices 

that promote timber stands with trees of varying ages and habitat suitable 

for the federally threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). 

Tim Gill, president of Forster-Gill, Inc., describes the significance of the Safe Harbor

program for the protection of northern spotted owl habitat. ”The government, through Safe

Harbor, seems to say, ’Thanks for letting the critters use the habitat that you as a landowner 

have and will allow to continue to grow, or that you assisted Mother Nature to create. Since 

you as a landowner have allowed this benefit for the critters to occur on your property, then at 

the end of the Safe Harbor Agreement you will not be penalized.‘ You can reap the beneficial 

uses whether it is converting cellulose material to cash or leaving it for future generations.“ 

Since the Service encourages uneven-aged 

management on privately owned timberland for 

spotted owl habitat, the Service was interested 

in pursuing a Safe Harbor Agreement. Through 

the agreement, Forster-Gill will enhance and 

maintain approximately 216 acres of forested 

habitat. At the end of the 80 year Safe Harbor 

Agreement, when the terms have been 

met, Forster-Gill has assurances 

that the property can be 

returned to baseline 

conditions, including

authorization for the 

incidental “take” of 

spotted owls. 

As anticipated by Tim Gill, a spotted owl pair 

moved onto Forster-Gill’s Blue Lake property 

after his Safe Harbor Agreement took effect. 

Even with owls inhabiting its property, ForsterGill’s harvest operations are proceeding according

to plan. The company's silviculture continues 

to maintain and create habitat characteristics 

suitable for the owl by converting a young, 

relatively homogenous, even-aged timber stand 

into an uneven-aged stand with large timber 

commonly associated with owl habitat. 

Forster-Gill, Inc. is a small family-owned and operated

investment corporation engaged in practicing forestry 

within the range of the northern spotted owl. Tim Gill’s 

preferred style of harvest is low intensity, individual 

tree selection that promotes the growth of large trees 

while maintaining a continuously forested landscape. 

While growing timber stands with large trees 

of various ages, Forster-Gill is promoting habitat

characteristics favorable to the owl. As a result 

of its timberland stewardship, Forster-Gill provides 

suitable habitat that is likely to attract northern 

spotted owls. 

Anticipating that an owl pair might 

eventually be attracted onto his 

property, Tim Gill’s forestry 

consulting firm contacted the 

local U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service office to discuss 

the possibility of a Safe 

Harbor Agreement.

Photograph courtesy of Ken R. Hoffman

Photograph courtesy of John & Karen Hollingsworth

Photographs courtesy of Ken R. Hoffman

6. 7.
Cheeca Lodge, an oceanside golf resort on Upper Matecumbe Key, and the 

endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Papilio aristodemus ponceanus)

both could have used a safe harbor in 1998 when Hurricane Georges slammed 

the Florida Keys. South Florida suffered widespread property damage. Native 

wildlife habitats were also affected. The butterfly was hit particularly hard, 

with much of its little remaining habitat in 

the Keys destroyed or significantly altered. 

Hurricanes have become a greater threat to the 

butterfly as its habitat declines. Only six years 

before Georges, the Schaus swallowtail came 

precariously close to extinction when Hurricane 

Andrew pounded the Keys. Fortuitously, Dr. Thomas 

Emmel, of the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and

Biodiversity (part of the Florida Museum of Natural 

History at the University of Florida), had already 

begun a captive breeding effort. He was able to 

restore some populations before Georges struck.

Following Hurricane Georges, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Cheeca Lodge, and the McGuire 

Center responded to the butterfly's plight by creating a Safe Harbor Agreement that provided for the 

restoration of Schaus swallowtail habitat on 

Cheeca Lodge property. This Safe Harbor Agreement is part of the Service’s continuing effort to 

work in partnership with private landowners 

to aid federally listed species.

“Much of the habitat for threatened and endangered species in the southeast and throughout the 

country occurs on private land,” says Sam Hamilton, 

Director of the Service’s Southeastern Region. “We 

need the direct involvement and support of private 

landowners, like Cheeca Lodge, to assist in conservation and recovery efforts for species like the 

Schaus swallowtail.”

The Safe Harbor Agreement, signed in 2001, is

expected to contribute to Schaus swallowtail 

recovery by restoring habitat for butterflies that 

disperse from the remaining populations in the 

upper Florida Keys. By providing places for 

dispersing butterflies to feed and rest, habitat

restored through this agreement could help them

reach other suitable but unoccupied habitat in 

the lower Florida Keys.

Under the Safe Harbor Agreement and with a 

$65,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, Cheeca Lodge and the McGuire Center

purchased and planted native trees and nectar

plants that the Schaus swallowtail uses for food 

and resting places. About 600 trees were planted 

in late 2001, including wild-lime and torchwood,

which are important caterpillar food plants. Over

1,000 nectar plants were added for the adult butterflies. Dr. Jaret C. Daniels of the McGuire Center

reports that almost 99 percent of the trees are 

thriving. He credits the high rate of survivorship 

to the dedication and enthusiasm of the Cheeca

Lodge staff and members. Akers Pence, a Ph.D. 

candidate at the University of Florida, also applauds Cheeca Lodge staff, and believes that 

someday Schaus swallowtails might use the site 

not only as a stopover, but also as a breeding site. 

The agreement covers Cheeca Lodge’s entire 

27-acre golf course and resort. Although no 

butterflies currently live on the property, there 

are more than 30 other species flying to the 

flowers and using the trees. 

Enhanced butterfly

habitat and 

interpretive sign

8. 9. Photograph courtesy of Dr. Thomas Emmel

Photograph courtesy of Cheeca Lodge

Photograph courtesy of Cheeca Lodge

Photograph courtesy of Dr. Thomas Emmel

Photograph courtesy of Dr. Thomas Emmel

Photograph courtesy of Dr. Thomas Emmel
Hawai‘i is often called the ”endangered species capital of the world.“ With its 

rich diversity of native animal and plant species, which evolved over eons in the archipelago’s geographical isolation, Hawai‘i has proved vulnerable to human-related 

habitat destruction, invasions of nonnative plant species, diseases spread by introduced mosquitoes, predation by nonnative animals, and habitat degradation by feral livestock.

Many of its unique creatures have already been lost, and many others could follow them into 

extinction. But a ranching operation is taking steps to restore habitat for some rare birds and 

plants while improving the property’s economic value. For over a century, the 2,000-acre 

Umikoa Ranch on the ”Big Island“ of Hawai‘i was used for intensive cattle grazing, which 

left the native koa forest a degraded pasture. However, through the efforts of the ranch 

managers and their partnerships with the State of Hawai‘i, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ducks Unlimited, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, some of the damage 

is now being repaired. 

To further their restoration efforts, the ranch managers

signed a Safe Harbor Agreement with the Service and 

the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources

Division of Forestry and Wildlife in December 2001. 

Under the regulatory protection of the agreement, the 

ranch is restoring and maintaining wetland and 

associated upland habitats for two endangered 

waterfowl species, the nene or Hawaiian goose

(Branta sandvicensis) and the koloa or Hawaiian 

duck (Anas wyvilliana).

Other activities include: 

1) excluding cattle from some habitats; 

2) allowing controlled grazing in other areas to 

maintain open, short-grass habitat needed by 

the nene; 

3) preventing the establishment of nonnative 

invasive plant species; 

4) controlling nonnative predators in and around 

newly created habitats for koloa and nene; 

5) prohibiting hunting in areas managed for koloa 

and nene; and 

6) controlling the introduction of nonnative 

waterfowl in order to stop hybridization.

Photograph of koloa (Hawaiian duck) ©Jack Jeffrey

Photograph of nene (Hawaiian goose) courtesy 

of John and Karen Hollingsworth

USFWS Photo

koloa

nene

10.

David Matsuura has been general manager for 

Umikoa Ranch since 1990. He convinced the 

owners to include conservation measures in 

the management of the ranch. The concept of 

stewardship, where diversified agriculture and 

conservation management can benefit each other, 

has become the ranch's management objective. 

Working with the State of Hawai‘i Forest 

Stewardship Project, the ranch has restored 

over 800 acres of degraded grazed pasturelands to native forest trees. Restoration of 

koa forests increases soil-water retention 

capacity and provides nesting and foraging 

habitat for Hawaiian forest birds. With 

now flourishing young koa stands, Umikoa 

Ranch expects to provide high-value lumber 

through the selective harvesting and milling 

of unhealthy and declining trees. Sustainable ranching and ecotourism also are encouraged under the Safe Harbor Agreement.

Koloa have begun reproducing on the ranch's 

Safe Harbor acreage. Matsuura is so pleased 

with the results of the Umikoa Safe Harbor

Agreement that he is working with the Service 

to manage additional habitat that may support 

other endangered animals, such as the Hawaiian

hawk or ‘io (Buteo solitarius), and the Hawaiian

hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). The 

management actions will also benefit listed 

plants, including the haha (Cyanea shipmannii),

‘oha wai (Clermontia lindseyana), and 

kiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa).

USFWS Photo

Photographs of (left to right): haha, Hawaiian hoary bat and Hawaiian hawk ©Jack Jeffrey

11.

haha

Hawaiian

hoary bat

Hawaiian 

hawk
Like the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), Kerry Russell is a native of the 

beautiful Texas Hill Country. Because his family's 130-acre ranch near Austin has prime habitat for the warbler and potential habitat for another endangered bird, the black-capped vireo 

(Vireo atricapilla), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to purchase it for inclusion within 

an adjacent national wildlife refuge. However, Russell wanted to keep his family’s land.

The Service and Environmental Defense then offered him another idea: the Safe Harbor 

program. By enrolling in a Safe Harbor Agreement for the vireo, Russell found a way to 

restore wildlife habitat on a portion of his ranch while remaining in control of his land.

Kerry Russell’s ties to his ranch reach back several

decades. In the late 1960s, he bought the property 

in partnership with his father, a Marine Corps World 

War II and Korean War pilot, and his uncle through 

the Texas Veterans Land Program. His parents lived 

on the ranch in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The

Russell Family Trust now holds the property, with 

a goal of improving it and keeping it for fishing, 

hunting, and other family recreational use.

His participation in the Safe Harbor program began 

when Texas Parks and Wildlife Department biologist 

Terry Turney introduced him 

to Environmental Defense 

biologist David Wolfe. Since 

Russell wanted to restore

native habitat on the ranch 

and repair damage from overgrazing that occurred while

he attended law school in

Wyoming, he recognized 

the Safe Harbor concept as 

“a wonderful opportunity.”

The Russells were the first

landowners in the area 

don’t drop below the baseline set when the property

was enrolled. The Hill Country is where virtually 

all the world’s golden-cheeked warblers and most 

of the black-capped vireos breed. Some of the 

counties are also close to the city of Austin, where 

rapid growth has accelerated the habitat loss that 

is one of the primary causes of the warbler’s and 

vireo’s declines. Both species are vulnerable to 

nest parasitism by brown-head cowbirds. Cowbirds

don’t build nests but instead lay eggs in the nests of

other species, which unknowingly raise cowbird 

offspring that out-compete the other nestlings. 

Since more than 94 percent of the land in Texas is 

privately owned, landowner involvement is crucial 

to warbler and vireo survival. Protecting the land 

from development isn’t enough to save the birds; 

land management is also essential. For the blackcapped vireo, that means creating what biologists 

call ”early successional habitat,“ in this case, 

shrubland or open wooded area with shin oaks 

and other shrubs no taller than six feet. At one 

time, periodic wildfires swept through the Hill 

Country, maintaining this kind of habitat for the 

vireo. Today wildfires are suppressed, and when 

the vegetation matures to older woodland, the 

vireo disappears. The bird's future now depends 

in part on landowners willing to conduct prescribed burns or other management actions that 

recreate early successional habitat.

The golden-cheeked warbler has different habitat requirements. This brightly colored songbird 

nests in stands of mature Ashe juniper (known as

“cedar” in Texas) mixed with oaks and other deciduous trees. With increasing urban and suburban development in the Hill Country, it’s difficult 

for the warbler to find suitable nesting spots. 

Texas Hill Country Safe Harbor landowners can aid

the warbler by allowing the regeneration of hardwood trees, which attract insects the warbler eats,

as well as letting Ashe junipers grow to maturity. 

The Russell family ranch offers suitable habitat 

for the warbler and in time will have suitable 

habitat for the vireo. In his Safe Harbor Agreement,

Russell has agreed to undertake several management actions, including removing excess brush,

excluding cattle from bird nesting areas, controlling cowbirds, and planting oak trees, shrubs, and

other plants to provide nesting and feeding sources.

Although the agreement extends over 30 years, 

he has already seen benefits from his land management activities, with more wildlife and less 

damaging erosion. 

In addition to enrolling his own property, Russell 

has become an ambassador for the Safe Harbor

approach, encouraging his neighbors to join the 

program. As of March 2005, seven Hill Country 

landowners had enrolled a total of 2,106 acres 

in the Texas Hill Country Safe Harbor Agreement.

to enroll, ”greatly improving

the prospects of the vireo by 

restoring high-quality habitat,“ 

according to Wolfe. As with 

all Safe Harbor Agreements, the 

Service provides Russell with 

assurances that his Endangered 

Species Act responsibility will be 

limited to the amount of existing habitat, 

or 

”baseline,“ present on the enrolled acreage 

when the agreement was signed. If habitat improvements attract black-capped vireos to the Safe Harbor

acreage during the duration of the agreement, the 

presence of these birds will not restrict the Russells’

use of the enrolled 20 acres beyond the agreed upon

voluntary conservation actions.

The Service issued Environmental Defense the 

permit for both the black-capped vireo and the 

golden-cheeked warbler for the Texas Hill Country 

Safe Harbor in December 2000. Landowners like 

Russell who enroll with Environmental Defense’s 

Safe Harbor Agreement, through certificates 

of inclusion, may be from any of 25 counties in the

Texas Hill Country, as long as they provide a net 

conservation benefit for either or both species and

David Wolfe,

Environmental 

Defense biologist 

black-capped 

vireo

12. 13.

© John Rae

© John Rae

© John Rae

© Greg Lasley

© Alisa Shull
Bob Russell’s land is tucked along the Mohawk River within Oregon’s Cascade foothills. 

The Mohawk Valley is a stunning expanse of rolling hills, forested lands, homesteads, and 

small timber farms. In 1938, a U.S. Bureau of Fisheries’ survey described the Mohawk as 

”not a good salmon stream,“ but its tributaries were native habitat for a less charismatic 

native fish: the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri).

The Oregon chub is a small minnow found only in western Oregon at lower elevations 

within the Willamette River drainage. It is adapted to slow-moving backwater areas,

such as sloughs and beaver ponds. Landscape changes, including dam construction, 

stream channelization, wetland filling, and loss of riparian or streamside vegetation have

resulted in a loss of backwater habitats typically used by the chub. In addition, altered

flooding and temperature patterns throughout the watershed have created conditions 

favorable to nonnative predator fish, such as bass, that were originally stocked for 

sport fishing. This loss of native or natural habitat and a high susceptibility to predation 

have drastically reduced Oregon chub abundance and distribution. In fact, only five viable 

populations were known to exist when 

the fish was federally listed in 1993 as 

an endangered species. 

A decade of Oregon chub surveys reveals 

that management and protection of existing 

populations, and introductions of chub into 

suitable habitats, more than doubled the 

number of known viable populations. Paul 

Scheerer, an Oregon chub expert with the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

believes recovery of this species is something that can be accomplished during 

his career. Since over 65 percent of the 

Willamette drainage is in private ownership, 

a major focus of chub recovery has been 

to work with private landowners like Bob 

Russell to introduce chub into small ponds 

and wetlands that are free from nonnative 

predator fish. 

When Russell bought his land in 1972, a friend 

helped him build three ponds, and he began 

haying and light sheep grazing on small portions 

of the property. More than 20 years later, Russell 

heard about the Oregon chub recovery effort and

thought that maybe his ponds would be a good 

home for the endangered fish. In 1999, Russell 

called the Oregon DFW, and soon Scheerer 

came out to look at the ponds. 

Scheerer found that at least one of the perennial,

spring-fed ponds was suitable habitat for chub. 

Ponds don’t have to be large to support the chub; 

at less than 9,000 square feet and a maximum 

depth of 6 feet, Russell’s pond had the potential 

for a self-sustaining population.

Russell worked with Scheerer and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service biologist Amy Horstman 

on the terms of a Safe Harbor Agreement to 

provide long-term assurances that Russell’s 

typical land uses would not be restricted by

Endangered Species Act regulations. Russell 

found the Safe Harbor policy to be a flexible 

tool that afforded him assurances without 

restricting his primary land uses. “The conditions that Paul and the Service put on the 

whole agreement were things I could easily 

live with,” says Russell. Scheerer agrees, 

saying, “There wasn’t anything that was 

objectionable. We set up a buffer around 

the pond that restricted activity but it didn’t 

restrict anything Bob was doing anyway.” 

Activities limited within the buffer area 

include pesticide application or soil disturbing practices that could harm the 

chub’s habitat. 

Given the ease of relocating Oregon chub, a 

clause was inserted into the agreement that if

Russell wanted to stock bass or carry out some

other action that could be harmful to the chub 

population, he would notify the Service and 

Oregon DFW, and the chub could be moved 

to a different location.

A total of 500 Oregon chub were introduced 

to Russell’s pond in October 2001 and May 2002. 

The chub were taken from a natural population 

to provide a backup or “refugium” population 

as insurance against a catastrophic decline 

of the natural population. Some of the relocated

chub spawned in 2002, and they appear to be 

doing very well in their new home. 

Chub recovery relies on establishment of 

populations in the three main sub-basins 

of the Willamette River system. The species 

should be able to flourish in many of the 

created ponds and wetlands that are 

abundant on private lands, and Safe Harbor

Agreements can be an ideal tool for gaining

landowner support. The Oregon DFW hopes 

that more landowners in the Santiam, mainstem Willamette, and Middle Fork Willamette 

river drainages who are interested in helping 

with Oregon chub recovery will enroll in 

Safe Harbor Agreements.

Photographs courtesy of Jenny Lord, USFWS

14. 15.
Working through a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, responsible

landowners, coupled with traditional land uses, are helping to ensure the survival of 

a small animal in southwest Idaho. Soulen Livestock, a family owned sheep and cattle 

operation headquartered in Weiser, Idaho, has welcomed nearly 200 southern Idaho 

ground squirrels (Spermophilus brunneus endemicus) relocated from sites where 

populations have been imperiled because of the decline of its sagebrush and bunchgrass habitat. The company and its federal and state partners hope the relocated squirrels 

will thrive, making it unnecessary to list this subspecies as threatened like its close relative, 

the northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus).

The southern Idaho ground squirrel is found 

in only three counties in western Idaho and is

considered a candidate for listing. Along with 

its other close relatives, it has been declining 

in numbers for perhaps two decades. 

Now, based on the experiment on the Soulen operation, Joe’s firm, in cooperation with Environmental

Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Idaho Governor’s 

Office of Species Conservation, is working with other

local ranchers on similar agreements. The Leopold

Stewardship Fund—an initiative of the Sand County

Foundation and Environmental Defense that is dedicated to conserving rare species on working private

lands—is helping fund this work. Thanks largely to 

the example set by Soulen Livestock, an ”umbrella“

Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances 

was signed in March 2005, covering the four counties 

thought to be the historic range of the species. 

Most of the squirrels relocated to the Soulen ranch 

came from a golf course in Weiser, home of one of 

the largest southern Idaho ground squirrel populations. ”As you can imagine, we became the object 

of a lot of good-natured jokes about taking squirrels 

off the golf course and letting them roam free on 

the ranch. We sometimes refer to the whole effort 

as ’Caddyshack Meets Bonanza‘.“ 

Like many ranch operations in the West, Soulen 

Livestock operates on a mixture of federal, state, 

and private lands. In the vicinity of the squirrels, 

the company owns some 43,000 acres of rangeland and leases approximately the same amount 

of Bureau of Land Management and state land. 

Soulen Livestock is one of the largest range 

sheep operations left in the state, with 8,000 

ewes tended by Peruvian herders who stay yearround with the sheep over an extensive range. 

The company also has 1,000 cow and calf pairs. 

Margaret Soulen Hinson is a partner in Soulen

Livestock with her father, Phil, and brother, 

Harry. Her husband, Joe, is a former timber industry executive and now a partner in a natural 

resource consulting firm. “Joe’s knowledge 

of the Endangered Species Act and his experience with such plans as Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances was a real 

advantage,” she says. “This is complicated 

business,” Margaret notes.

Photographs courtesy of Joe Hinson

Some people speculate that, with the loss of their 

native habitat, these squirrels use artificial habitats, 

such as farms and golf courses, because these manmade grasslands provide abundant grass for food 

and enough people to discourage raptors, badgers,

snakes, and other predators. 

”My family, and certainly Joe and I, all share a 

love of wildlife and the out-of-doors. It is, in fact, 

why we all got into this business, and we want 

to see all the wildlife for which we have some 

responsibility do well through the way we run 

our operation.“

southern Idaho

ground squirrel

16. 17.
Not many years ago, a large forest products company and a major conservation group 

were as likely to meet in a court of law as in a loblolly pine forest. That’s no longer true 

today, when such organizations discover that they can achieve more through cooperative 

efforts than by courtroom combat. 

Such a partnership was demonstrated in 2001, when the International Paper Company 

enrolled in the Virginia Red-cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement, which is 

administered by The Nature Conservancy. IP, the world’s largest paper and forest products 

company, became the first Virginia landowner to enroll in a Safe Harbor Agreement.

From the beginning, the concept of cooperation was as

much a part of this Safe Harbor as the landowner and the

endangered bird. Before landowners were able to enroll,

four parties—TNC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 

and Environmental Defense—met repeatedly to work 

out the details of the agreement. The goal was to

encourage landowners to take voluntary actions 

to protect and increase the tiny population of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides 

borealis) in southern Virginia.

Nowhere are the woodpeckers rarer than in Virginia, 

where a 2003 census counted only 24 individuals 

in 6 groups. Nearly all of them are found on TNC’s 

2,600-acre Piney Grove Preserve in Sussex County.

Long before there was an endangered species list 

or Safe Harbor Agreements, red-cockaded woodpeckers were a common sight in the longleaf and 

other pine forests that dominated the southeast. John

James Audubon noted that the bird was “found abundantly” from Texas to New Jersey and inland into 

Tennessee. Since Audubon’s time, the red-cockaded 

woodpecker has become rare, losing nearly all its preferred open, old-growth southern pine habitat to timber 

harvesting, agriculture, development, and fire suppression.

On IP’s Safe Harbor property, restoring habitat 

is the job of Harvey Darden. As the company’s 

Forest Operations Team Leader for Virginia, he 

oversees the 286 acres enrolled in the Safe 

Harbor Agreement. Darden has worked for the 

company for 25 years and is responsible for 

the management of IP’s Virginia lands. His Virginia roots go back even further. A native of 

Southampton County, he has a lifelong love of 

the land and says that ”being a good steward 

of the land is very near and dear to me.“ Advancing IP’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative program, with its mission of conserving forest resources for future generations, fits well with his 

personal commitment to sustainable forestry. 

To implement IP’s 33-year Safe Harbor Agreement, Darden is restoring and enhancing the 

woodpecker’s foraging habitat by thinning 

pine stands, removing the hardwood understory, and regenerating the pine forest. 

In the past, periodic wildfires maintained 

the open park-like structure of these forests, 

which meets the nesting and foraging habitat

requirements of the birds. Today, wildfires are 

suppressed, and without management actions 

that mimic those fires, such as prescribed 

burns or other means of hardwood control, 

woodpeckers abandon overgrown forests.

In return for IP’s beneficial actions, the Safe 

Harbor Agreement provides assurances that 

at the end of the agreement, the company 

can return to the baseline population of 

woodpeckers—in IP’s case, zero—present 

when the agreement was signed. 

Darden says that the Safe Harbor Agreement 

meshes perfectly with IP’s sustainable forestry 

goal. When asked why IP chose to participate 

in a Safe Harbor Agreement, his answer is 

simple: ”Because it’s the right thing to do.“ 

Other Virginia landowners within a 40-mile radius 

of Piney Grove Preserve are eligible to enroll in the

Safe Harbor Agreement. By encouraging neighboring landowners to improve habitat for the woodpecker, The Nature Conservancy hopes to enlarge

the Virginia population and secure its future in the

state. Recognizing that the bird’s future in Virginia

depends on having enough foraging and nesting

habitat, TNC's Virginia State Director Michael

Lipford says, ”Forging partnerships with private

landowners is essential. International Paper’s 

commitment to Safe Harbor sets an admirable 

example that we hope other landowners 

will follow.“

Darden notes that voluntary Safe Harbor participation does not mean that a landowner relinquishes

control or ownership of the land, nor does it restrict

all activities on the land. Instead, he says, ”It is 

certainly a win-win proposition for everyone.“

The woodpecker was listed as an endangered 

species in 1970, but its decline continued, 

particularly on private lands. The ESA prohibits 

harming or harassing the bird without a permit, 

but until the development of Safe Harbor, the ESA

offered no incentives to encourage landowners 

to restore the bird’s nesting and foraging habitat. 

Harvey Darden

Photograph courtesy of Joe Reinman, USFWS

Photograph courtesy of Joan Walker, USFWS

© Derrick Hamrick

Photograoph courtesyof International Paper Companny

Illustration by John James Audubon

18. 19.
As soon as the South Carolina Statewide Safe Harbor Agreement was announced 

in March 1998, landowner interest spread like fire in a longleaf forest. As of March 

2005, 104 landowners and 398,911 acres were enrolled in the statewide program. 

The agreement built upon the success of the nation's first Safe Harbor, the North Carolina 

agreement launched in 1995 for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The 

South Carolina Safe Harbor was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina Forestry Commission, South 

Carolina Red-cockaded Woodpecker Conservation Coalition, Westvaco Corporation, and

Environmental Defense. The Service granted SCDNR an “umbrella” Safe Harbor permit, 

under which the state agency enrolls individual landowners. The following profiles only 

hint at the diversity of landowners enrolled in this Safe Harbor Agreement. 

Donald Dyches

Donald Dyches’s 891-acre Hampton County property 

is a mix of pine plantation, hardwood forest, mature 

river bottom, open pineland, and isolated wetlands. 

But there’s one thing missing that he wants to have 

on his land: red-cockaded woodpeckers. 

Dyches purchased his land in pieces, originally intending to use it for deer hunting, but his interests 

have expanded to include forestry and land restoration. Due to the condition of the property when 

he bought it, Dyches had to restore isolated wetlands 

that had been ditched and drained, regrow oldgrowth pines, and clear invasive hardwoods. When 

he learned about the state’s Safe Harbor umbrella 

permit, it appealed to him as a way to protect both 

the bird and the landowner. He enrolled in 2002, and 

now he recommends it to “anybody and everybody” 

as a win-win situation.

Brosnan Forest and Norfolk Southern 

Long before the Safe Harbor program came along, 

the Norfolk Southern Corporation was managing 

its 16,000-acre Brosnan Forest to benefit the redcockaded woodpecker. The rail transportation 

company had established the property as a conference and recreation center, as well as an employee vacation retreat. Managing for quail 

hunting also created habitat attractive to redcockaded woodpeckers.

Mark Clement, Brosnan Forest’s General Manager 

of Facilities, explains that Safe Harbor “makes it 

a lot easier to do the right thing.” It “takes away 

our liability for encouraging growth of the woodpecker population,” allowing the company to attract

woodpeckers and still meet its fiscal responsibility.

All of Brosnan Forest was enrolled in the state’s 

Safe Harbor Agreement in 1998, with an identified

baseline of 67 groups of birds. One major management action Brosnan Forest has undertaken has 

been to install artificial nest cavities for the woodpeckers, which saves the birds 3 to 12 years labor

required to drill a cavity. In 2004, the number of

groups on Brosnan Forest was up to 76.

Friendfield Plantation

Throughout his 30 years at Friendfield Plantation, 

Virgil Dugan has faced an endangered species 

dilemma. Managing the plantation for quail meant

inadvertently managing for red-cockaded woodpeckers, and Dugan was concerned about the potential

restrictions. Beginning in the mid-1970s, just a few

years after the bird was listed as an endangered

species, he participated in state meetings and 

other discussions. “Everyone was a little distraught,”

he remembers.

By enrolling Friendfield’s entire acreage in a Safe

Harbor Agreement, Dugan has found a way to maintain the property’s mature longleaf forest without 

fear of increased regulation. The woodpeckers seem

to be happy, too; they’ve increased from 9 to 12 groups.

Turkey Hill Plantation

H. Stro Morrison, III, was ready for a Safe Harbor Agreement when he learned of the program. As a registered

forester and manager of Turkey Hill Plantation, he was

well aware that the prescribed burns that encourage

quail and red-cockaded woodpeckers could also bring

Endangered Species Act regulation. Although Turkey

Hill had already welcomed a nesting pair of bald eagles, 

the plantation’s burning schedule had been slowed to

avoid “woodpecker problems.”

However, Morrison no longer sees red-cockaded woodpeckers as a problem since enrolling the 17,500-acre

plantation under the state’s umbrella Safe Harbor Agreement. He is eager to pursue environmental protection

and management, and is considering ecotourism possibilities to supplement Turkey Hill’s quail hunts. Under

the agreed upon conditions of the Safe Harbor, he says,

Turkey Hill can “do what we wanted to do,” and practice the environmental management under which 

everybody wins.

Photograph courtesy of Ralph Costa, USFWS

Photograph courtesy of Phillip Jordon

Photograph courtesy of Lori Duncan

Photograph courtesy of USFS

Photograph courtesy of Michael Keys

Mark Clement 

in Brosnan Forest 20. 21.
Good Hope Plantation

When Good Hope Plantation enrolled 11,000 acres 

in the Safe Harbor Agreement in 1999, consulting

forester Al Epps had been managing the property 

for almost 20 years. He found it a challenge to deal

with the potential red-cockaded woodpecker presence on the quail and timber plantation. He recognized the potential of a Safe Harbor even before the

agreement was announced. 

Epps sees no disadvantage in the Safe Harbor Agreement, which has worked very well for Good Hope.

“Incentives are key,” he explains, saying that he’s

looking forward to more cost-share programs, particularly for small landowners, and that money 

would be well spent to provide assured funding for

management activities such as prescribed burns.

Hobcaw Barony and the 

Belle W. Baruch Foundation

After New York financier Bernard Baruch created 

a winter home and hunting retreat from an area 

once used for rice plantations, he opened it to such 

guests as Winston Churchill, General Pershing, 

and President Franklin Roosevelt. Now owned by 

the Belle W. Baruch Foundation, the 17,500-acre 

property is dedicated to research, education, and 

conservation. Among the wildlife species finding 

a home there is the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Clemson University researchers have studied these

birds since the 1970s, and in 1999 Hobcaw Barony

became one of the first enrollees in the state’s umbrella Safe Harbor Agreement. About 8,000 acres 

of Hobcaw Barony were enrolled, with an identified baseline of 23 woodpecker groups.

Enrolling in Safe Harbor was a wise decision, 

according to plantation manager George Chastain.

Under the agreement, he uses prescribed fire and

mechanical means to restore the pine woods to the

natural open state of a longleaf forest, and installs

cavity inserts to assist nesting woodpeckers.

Chastain explains that Safe Harbor “works well 

with what we do.” Although the foundation is a 

non-profit organization, he says that, like any 

private landowner, he is responsible for paying the

bills and needs some assurance that the property 

will stay financially secure.

Photograph courtesy of Chris Zajicek

Photograph courtesy of Mike Lennartz, USFS

Photograph courtesy of Ralph Costa, USFWS Photograph courtesy of Les Saucier

Photograph courtesy of Peter V. Campbell,USFWS

Photograph courtesy of Mike Lennartz, USFS

22. 23.
To learn more about enrolling

in a Safe Harbor Agreement 

or Candidate Conservation

Agreement with Assurances, 

call Environmental Defense’s

office in Washington or 

one of the organization’s

regional offices. 

Capital Office

Wildlife Program

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20009

202-387-3500

National Headquarters

257 Park Avenue South

New York, NY 10010

212-505-2100

For information about Safe Harbor 

Agreements or Candidate Conservation

Agreements with Assurances, contact 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

office for your state.

Headquarters 

1-703-358-2105

http://endangered.fws.gov/

Arlington, Virginia, and Washington, DC

Pacific Region 

(Region 1)

1-503-231-6118

http://pacific.fws.gov/

Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, 

Pacific Trust Territories

California/Nevada Operations

1-916-414-6464

http://pacific.fws.gov/

California, Nevada

Southwest Region

(Region 2)

1-505-248-6654

http://southwest.fws.gov/

Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Great Lakes, Big Rivers Region

(Region 3)

1-612-713-5343

http://midwest.fws.gov/

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin

Southeast Region

(Region 4)

1-404-679-7313

http://southeast.fws.gov/

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida,

Tennessee, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

Northeast Region

(Region 5)

1-413-253-8627

http://northeast.fws.gov/

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia

Mountain-Prairie Region

(Region 6)

1-303-236-4258

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Alaska

(Region 7)

1-907-786-3868

http://alaska.fws.gov/

Alaska

California Office

5655 College Avenue

Oakland, CA 94618

510-658-8008

Rocky Mountain Office

2334 North Broadway

Boulder, CO 80304

303-440-4901

North Carolina Office

2500 Blue Ridge Road

Raleigh, NC 27607

919-881-2601

Texas Office

44 East Avenue

Austin, TX 78701

512-478-5161

Massachusetts Office 

18 Tremont Street

Boston, MA 02108

617-723-2996

Information is also available at 

www.environmentaldefense.org/go/conservationincentives.

Information is also available at 

24. http://endangered.fws.gov. 25.
Environmental Defense, a leading national non-profit organization,

represents more than 400,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental

Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative privatesector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most 

serious environmental problems. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible under the

Endangered Species Act for conserving and recovering our 

nations’s rarest plant and animal species and their habitats, 

working in coorperation with other public and private partners. 

May, 2005