Arizona State Habitat Partnership Committee (HPC) Meeting
DRAFT Minutes of Friday, February 26, 2010
Present:
John Harris, AZ Game & Fish Commission, HPC Chair
Stephen Williams, Forage Resource Study Group
Ron Pittman, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Larry Phoenix, AZ Game and Fish Department
Tom Mackin, Williams/Flagstaff HPC
Clair Harris, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Joe Currie, AZ Game and Fish Department
Rex Brown, Springerville/Alpine HPC
Natalie Robb, Payson Natural Resources Committee
Ben Brochu, AZ Game and Fish Department
Evan Lautzenheiser, AZ Game and Fish Department
Scott Fisher, AZ Game and Fish Department
Al Eiden, AZ Game and Fish Department
Jim DeVos, AZ Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation,
AZ Elk Society
John Koleszar, AZ Deer Association
Miles Moretti, Mule Deer Foundation (by phone)
Ron Eichelberger, AZ Elk Society
Steve Clark, AZ Elk Society
Leonard Ordway, AZ Game and Fish Department
Bob Birkeland, AZ Game and Fish Department
Ron Thompson, AZ Game and Fish Department
Mike Senn, AZ Game and Fish Department
Brian Wakeling, AZ Game and Fish Department
Jim Hinkle, AZ Game and Fish Department
Ruth Gregory, AZ Game and Fish Department
Ignacio Beltran, AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society
Mark Weise, AZ Game and Fish Department
Joe Currie, AZ Game and Fish Department
Bob Vahle, AZ Wildlife Federation
Mike Godwin, AZ Game and Fish Department
John Clemons, AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society
Blaine Bickford, AZ Deer Association
Brian Wakeling introduced the new Commissioner and HPC Chairman, John Harris.
A motion was made and carried to approve the minutes from the last State HPC meeting on July 25, 2009.
Local HPC and Conservation Organization Reports and Success Stories:
Ron Pittman for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) – The Tusayan Pipeline is running and successful and
is now about 13 miles long with several new drinkers. Ron commended Clair Harris for his skill as catchment builder.
As a result of work on this project, Region 2 did not have to haul water this summer. Another Unit 9 catchment project
will take place June 15-22, 2010 and catchment projects will be ongoing. There will be about 10 more in Unit 9, being
built at the rate of 1 or 2 per year. This should cut water hauling expenses considerably. The volunteer work started in
October, and includes the volunteer labor and donated use of a backhoe by Kevin Shafer of Bohunk Excavating. The
project was funded with special tag funds and banquet funds from both RMEF and the Arizona Elk Society.
Steve Clark for the Arizona Elk Society (AES) – Since the purchase of the Buck Springs allotment, there is now a huge
list of projects to be completed on the 73,000 acre allotment. Working with the Coconino National Forest (NF), AES
plans to use GIS overlays to identify ways to draw elk out of aspen groves. Surrounding permittees very supportive of
this. There are all new staff at the Coconino NF and they are allowing AES people be creative in coming up with ideas
for the management of the allotment. Brian Dykstra is the district ranger. Management will include monitoring of
riparian areas. Jim deVos mentioned that while AES is dedicated to identifying volunteer projects, they are also looking
for funding for other projects. The goal is for a comprehensive approach, using an array of treatments – thinning, fire,
road closures. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also interested, noting possible Chiricahua Leopard frog benefits.
The Forest Service realizes the value of participation by wildlife conservation organizations (WCOs). They are also
looking at a permanent no-graze option for the future.
Bob Birkeland for the Show Low HPC – The Forest Service’s NEPA of Rodeo/Chediski fire area (175,000 acres) is
nearly complete with a decision expected in the spring. Previously funded water projects in Unit 3C are completed. The
HPC attendance in the last several years has averaged around 3-6 people; 15-18 people have been at the last several
meetings.
AZ State Habitat Partnership Committee
Meeting of February 26, 2010
Page 2
Bob Birkeland for the Winslow HPC – Ken Clay’s landscape scale projects funded within the last 5 years are done. In
addition to special tag funds, Pittman-Robertson money was used to clean dirt tanks and repair trick tanks. The
Department asked Black Mesa Ranger District, in writing, for permission to clean about 25 earthen water tanks in Units
3C and 4B, and mentioned that they had identified these waters in coordination with two livestock permittees. Black
Mesa RD replied, in writing, that cleaning the earthen tanks would require heritage (archeological) surveys; permission
denied. Archeological surveys have never been required in the past to clean existing earthen tanks.
Director’s Comments:
Director Larry Voyles joined the meeting at 10:00 AM to speak to the group.
Larry commended Commissioner John Harris for his interest in becoming the new State HPC Chairman. He also
expressed appreciation to the group as a whole, and their dedication to wildlife. He then offered a brief history of the
State HPC.
The focus has been on expanding partnerships and getting good work done for wildlife, and it should
continue to do so. Over the years, partnerships between wildlife conservation organizations, volunteers, landowners,
livestock producers, and state and federal agency personnel have made the state HPC the success story that it is today.
The HPC would not be successful without the Special Big Game Tag Fund and the associated efforts of the wildlife
conservation organizations. These dollars are raised by the WCOs through the sale of special tags authorized by the
Commission. Raffles and auctions involve a lot of work by the organizations’ volunteers and wildlife is the benefactor.
Already this year, a bighorn sheep tag has sold for $120,000 and a mule deer tag has sold for $177,000. Larry praised the
efforts made by volunteers in the various organizations who make this fundraising possible, especially commending them
for the personal, individual sacrifices they make to get the job done.
In today's economy, this is an affirmation that sportsman still support wildlife conservation and that wildlife management
agencies entrusted with that conservation are doing a good job.
Funds raised by the sale of special tags by the Department’s conservation partners enhance the Department’s ability to
develop waters, improve habitats, conduct surveys or wildlife research projects, and match federal dollars. The
Department does not use special tag dollars to fund base operations, but uses them to enhance programs and expand the
ability to get work done. The Department cannot accomplish this without the collaboration and support of its
conservation funding partners. The HPC program is improving the habitat quality on millions of acres in Arizona. The
HPC needs to better communicate the successes of the HPC process and its benefits to wildlife.
Since the inception of this program in the mid-1980s through 2009, over $16.8 million has been raised through the sale of
Special Big Game License Tags. That is very significant, as is the impact to wildlife that have benefited from projects
funded by these dollars.
The Habitat Partnership Committee remains a collaborative process. Potential projects should be discussed and
opportunities identified. We need to avoid "positions." We need to discuss what we need to get done, and how we can
best do it. We need to negotiate, not dictate to one another. Project proponents often suggest the innovative solutions or
develop new opportunities. Those who work to raise funds enable progress in wildlife and habitat resource management.
And the expertise of professional biologists ensures that the dollars are invested in improving and protecting wildlife
habitat based on the best science available.
Collaboration on project funding means examining the things that we have in common. Which projects will yield the
most benefit for wildlife? Which projects have the greatest potential for success, and which ones will yield the best return
on investment? Negotiation is a skill that benefits us all. We can build on our common interests, and we have many. The
AZ State Habitat Partnership Committee
Meeting of February 26, 2010
Page 3
focus should be on the projects we agree on; then discuss those that we may question. If we look at our areas of mutual
agreement, we have the opportunity to build on our common views.
It must be remembered that because wildlife is a state resource, the revenues raised are state dollars and must be spent in
accordance with statutes, rules, and regulations that govern the accounting and expenditures of state revenues.
Governmental limitations remain on how dollars can be spent.
It should also be noted that as state dollars, special tag funds can be used as match to leverage additional dollars.
Increasing match is an important way that we can use state dollars to expand the quality and quantity of work
accomplished for wildlife. The predator project just funded is a great example of the leveraging of dollars. We need to do
more of this. And the lines of communication with our Funds and Planning section must be kept open to identify match
dollars and be certain special tag dollars are not counted more than once as match. This will not pass muster with the
federal agencies who match our state dollars, but we want to make sure every possible dollar is accounted for as match.
Committing state dollars requires more than a verbal commitment from a Department employee. A Department financial
commitment requires a collection agreement to convey finances and resources to a third party. And a Collection
Agreement cannot be crafted without an umbrella Memorandum of Understanding. There is a sequence of steps that must
be followed. These items take time and must be developed in the proper sequence; getting a commitment out of
sequential order can create challenges for all involved. All agreements should reference the enabling documents.
Larry clarified the importance of following procedures so that we are all on the same page and do not create any
unnecessary urgencies.



Commitment of Department resources requires written notification from the Department,
Department monies cannot be transmitted without an MOU and Collection Agreement, and
Final commitment of State HPC funds to a third party (like USFS, BLM, or wildlife conservation organization)
must acknowledge the existence of the MOU and Collection Agreement.
The Habitat Partnership Committee and the Special Big Game Tag Fund processes continue to serve as an example of the
success of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation – hunters taking a leadership role in the conservation of
Arizona's wildlife.
Q&A for Director Voyles:
Tom Mackin asked if there are any threats to the Department’s federal funds given the current state budget situation. No,
the federal funds are not threatened, however the Department uses its Heritage fund money as match for its federal
funding.
Stephen Williams didn’t have a question, but offered kudos to the Department and the current HPC staff for the
continuous improvement that has taken place since the HPC program inception. Larry then commended the Game Branch
staff and noted that few realize just how flat the Department is in its staffing.
HPC Project Proposal Discussion – Brian Wakeling:
Brian led the discussion by giving a brief background about historical changes to the process. Brian clarified that there
was no intent by the Department to control the funds at the exclusion of the conservation group funding partners. He
reminded the group that the HPC process should not look solely to special tag dollars for funding. Other grants and
funding sources are available, as are the private funds of the conservation groups, who have spent thousands on wildlife
projects over the years.
AZ State Habitat Partnership Committee
Meeting of February 26, 2010
Page 4
Steve Clark spoke about a letter that AES has written to the Department suggesting solutions for coordination between the
Department and the WCOs on funding decisions. His concern was that cooperation happens in the setting of a meeting,
but then ends after the meeting. Sometimes issues are left unresolved at meetings, and there is insufficient follow up to
getting to a solution. This was only a catalyst for concern among the WCOs. And the recent HPC funding report did not
include other suggested changes that several of the groups collectively feel they should have had a voice in formulating.
The AES suggested a Memorandum Of Understanding or cooperative agreement between the Department and the groups
– an agreement being something that both sides “agree” to.
Larry Voyles made the point that meetings are not necessarily the best venues for the relationship building that
collaboration requires. Dialogues should be taking place extensively outside the meeting setting.
John Koleszar mentioned that there has been plenty of opportunity to do a lot of that, but that some field people think the
WCOs are great at raising money, but they don’t like the process that involves the WCOs’ role in selecting projects to be
funded. The Department, throughout their ranks, should understand this is a collaborative process. Larry agreed and
reminded the group that professional input and stakeholder desires are equally important and that often, neither side has
the whole picture.
The development of a guidance document, with history, accomplishments, and general operational guidelines is needed.
This will be most helpful especially in light of sometimes frequent personnel changes and WCO board turnover. This
document should institutionalize the process, but allow for “true” emergencies to be accommodated.
Larry Voyles agreed that this is a good idea. The WCOs should be a part of it as the people who raise the funds. The
intent should be process improvement without revamping the whole program, which has a demonstrated history of
accomplishing major things that benefit wildlife.
A small group of WCO members has had a discussion with various stakeholders and the Department people who have the
task of facilitating the communication. Communication is the issue. The document needs to be a living document.
Brian explained that in light of these concerns, the HPC funding report handed out at last summer’s state HPC meeting
has been shelved. But he reminded the group that the report was the Department’s attempt at formalizing the process and
had been presented as a draft. The Department had asked for, but received, very little feedback on it. It was noted that the
funding report did not involve the WCOs, nor does the HPC charter recognize WCOs or their link to HPCs.
Steve Clark suggested forming a small committee, made up of three wildlife conservation organization people and three
Department people to write a document, and use Jim deVos as the “word smithy.” Larry Voyles said that this is doable as
long as there are no “ivory towers.”
Ron Pittman mentioned that this is the first year that there weren’t any major changes to the HPC process and that
communication among the WCOs is improving. He also reminded the group that many national organizations, and
specifically RMEF, will stop their funding if tag funds go toward general purposes, rather than specific wildlife projects.
He also stated that the HPC funding report did its job in bringing the WCOs together to reach consensus on what their
concerns are.
Clair Harris made the point that funding decisions need to be made based on what’s best for wildlife, and not for any
special interests.
Leonard Ordway noted that many process improvements have taken place over the last several years and have forced a lot
more communication internally. He also stated that the Department never walked away from a funding meeting without
being comfortable that there was an agreement on funding.
AZ State Habitat Partnership Committee
Meeting of February 26, 2010
Page 5
Regarding the HPC subcommittee for this planning document, the group agreed that the committee should be made up of
not more than six members, who represent NGOs and Department. There should be involvement from the local HPCs.
Jim deVos suggested that members of the committee take responsibility for the necessary networking and communication.
Mike Senn suggested that there should also be representation from landowners or ranchers.
It was determined that by March 11, Steve Clark will come up with three or four names and Ron Thompson will suggest
three or four Department people. All members should be people who are involved with the local HPCs.
Brian mentioned the HPC charter and that it is due for revisions. Jim deVos mentioned that it would be a great document
for the committee to start with. The committee will provide a draft revised charter or other document by the date of the
Summer 2010 State HPC meeting.
Tom Mackin mentioned that there is a bit confusion about what the issues are for people who have not yet been involved
in any of these discussions. Brian explained that this committee will be writing a process on how the WCOs and the
Department come to decision on project funding. The document should just be a clarification of how funding process
works. This is not designed to be exclusionary. The new charter or guiding document will be presented in draft form to
the State HPC for their concurrence. There has to be input from everyone and Brian suggested that AES share their letter
with the other interested parties.
Leonard mentioned that the parallel between the HPC process and special tag funding will be formally recognized as part
of this collaboration.
This process should ensure that Department priorities are clear to the local HPCs and how to handle “out of cycle”
requests for funding. Tom Mackin pointed out that the “out of cycle” funding decisions exclude the local HPCs and chip
away at the whole process. The local HPCs don’t want the process to become restrictive, but decisions should be made
based on the big picture and not just what’s important to one particular group or area. This is where communication is
crucial. The intent should be to ensure that advance planning is done in order to minimize or stop “out of cycle” projects.
Review of 2010 Special Big Game Tag Funding:
Ron Eichelberger reported that AES was withdrawing project no. 09-112, the Coyote, Witmer, Turkey Creek Fence
project.
Ron Thompson thanked the WCOs for their work in evaluating project proposals and distributed the list of funded
projects. The list was determined at the HPC project funding meeting between the Department and the WCO funding
partners on January 30, 2010. The Department’s priority projects were all approved for funding.
Brian Wakeling explained the reasons for the modified predator control proposal and funding increase. Much of the work
will take place on private properties and the agreements with landowners are in the works. As for the work proposed for
the Boquillas, Region 3 Supervisor Bob Posey is the lead on securing an agreement with the Navajo Nation. Thus far, the
tribe has been reluctant to sign any long-term agreements. In the mean time, there are significant lands in Unit 10 where
work can be carried out, and also on the Ohaco properties in Unit 4A. The RMEF and AES have also offered their
banquet dollars for the project and are in favor of the project, even if it means that no work can be done on the Boquillas.
A motion was made to approve the list of funded projects. The motion carried. Brian Wakeling urged anyone with
questions or concerns about any of the projects to contact the Game Branch.
AZ State Habitat Partnership Committee
Meeting of February 26, 2010
Page 6
The group then continued with Local HPC and Conservation Organization Reports and Success Stories:
Jim deVos talked about the Arizona Sportsmen For Wildlife Conservation (AZSFWC)-sponsored habitat project in
the Buckskin Mountains called “Sunami.” It was a $100,000 habitat project for an area identified by the Mule Deer
Working Group. Two thousand acres have already been done, and seven sections of state land will be next. AZSFWC
has also applied for National Forest Foundation grants to treat parcels on the North Kaibab winter range. The Arizona
Deer Association (ADA) and AZSFWC are working with the Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) to further amplify the
project.
Steve Clark for the AES reported that they met with San Carlos Apache tribe regarding elk in the Rodeo/Chediski fire
area. Elk numbers have doubled, affecting the tribe’s only industry, cattle. AES would like to see opportunities to do
projects that will draw elk off the reservation, and suggested that perhaps the Department needs to propose a project.
Larry Phoenix reported for the Forage Resource Study Group (FRSG), which does forage monitoring three times a
year, as well as collecting precipitation data. With over five feet of snow this year, there has been a lot of seed growth.
Projects on the Flying M and Bar T Bar Ranches have resulted in the clearing of 3,500 acres. Old fence has also been
replaced with wildlife friendly fence. For the Williams/Flagstaff HPC, seven dirt tanks have been refurbished in the
southeast area of Unit 10 and are now all overflowing. A lot of antelope have been seen in the agra axe treatment areas.
Natalie Robb reported that the Payson Natural Resources Committee (PNRC) met on February 3. Jarrod McFarlin’s
Black Mesa catchment project is done. There were 20 people at the last PNRC meeting and the group will be working on
five funded projects.
Ron Thompson gave the report for the Safford HPC. Two thirds of the Sunset treatment project has been
accomplished. The entire area to be treated totals 400,000 acres. Some areas will be re-treated to target re-growth.
Ben Brochu for the Sierra Vista and Tucson HPCs: The Sierra Vista HPC formed six months ago and has enjoyed
good attendance. The Tucson HPC continues to experience good participation, with an increase in interested ranchers.
The Coronado National Forest is very active, with its emphasis on landscape scale burning and water projects. The
Coronado is currently in the process of completing the NEPA process for whole mountain ranges at a time. The Border
Patrol is even benefiting from canopy reductions projects, which make their aerial surveillance easier. Arizona Game and
Fish Department’s John Windes is starting a grassland restoration working group. The Arizona Chapter of Safari Club
International (SCI-AZ) has been a great partner, funding projects and providing volunteers. SCI-AZ has recently
purchased a custom built trailer for work on water projects. It was suggested that some type of recognition for SCI’s
contributions should be done.
Scott Fisher represented the Southwest HPC, but the group had nothing to report.
Rex Brown, for the Springerville/Alpine HPC, thanked the Department and funding partners for the money for burn
projects which total 2,000 acres to date. The Forest Service has thinned another 4,000 acres, while the NEPA is
completed on another 68,000 acres. The Springerville Ranger District was awarded federal stimulus dollars to conduct
burns in the Nutrioso area. Membership and participation in the HPC has been low.
Ignacio Beltran reported that the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society (ADBSS) is right on schedule with their
projects. Casteneda and Black Mesa catchments are complete and Cunningham is coming up. They will be working with
the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club on Crotch Tank and have more site visits lined up for the next year.
AZ State Habitat Partnership Committee
Meeting of February 26, 2010
Page 7
Blaine Bickford for the Arizona Deer Association (ADA) – Region 2 had a water hauling issue, and contacted the ADA
to find private funding for water hauling into a BLM catchment in Unit 12B. The ADA immediately agreed to cover the
costs for hauling the water, and then several individuals stepped up to cover the costs themselves.
Bob Vahle encouraged people to get involved with forest restoration planning efforts in the state’s national forests. The
work the forests are planning could be a great fit for HPC work, as well as a great opportunity to leverage dollars.
Miscellaneous points of discussion:
Bob Birkeland mentioned that the Department met new lessees in his sectors last fall. The lessees planted millet, winter
wheat and liked the idea of stewardship. However, when the surveys were flown, no elk were observed there for the first
time ever. But they had put in 500 head of cattle.
Ron Thompson mentioned that all local HPCs need to know about all these landscape projects and tie project planning
into what the Department identifies as important habitat. Mike Senn mentioned the use of different data layers and that
game species are a driver as areas of conservation priority. He offered to have the Department present state wildlife plans
at any local HPC meetings. Ron would like to see the use of a geospatial web-based tool to track habitat treatments.
Clair Harris stated that he attended a State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) meeting and game species were hardly
mentioned. He found it very interesting, and it gave a good, specific look at what the non-game side is working towards.
If the HPCs could help to tie both sides together it would be great.
A presentation on SWAP and data layers, especially habitat corridors, could be an agenda item at the next state HPC
meeting.
Mike Senn reminded the group to keep informed about possible sweeps to the Heritage Fund. He suggested that perhaps
the next winter HPC meeting could include a barbecue, and perhaps a shoot at the range. He expressed appreciation to the
group for their openness and willingness to get the issues out on the table.
Commissioner Harris reminded the group that the problems and issues raised today are not new. He also likes the idea of
having some of the funds set aside for out of cycle emergencies.
Clair Harris asked if any other states have a similar model to the HPC. Ron Pittman stated that in his experience, as the
Arizona representative for the RMEF, the Arizona HPC is unique. Clair also mentioned the need to get younger people
involved. Brian related that the Department has a hunting heritage workgroup to address this issue, and they will be
working more closely with the conservation groups in the future. He urged the WCOs to talk to youth who attend their
events about the opportunity to give back.
Date and location for summer meeting: Friday July 30, 2010 at the Department’s Region 1 office in Pinetop.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 PM.