New Mexico Habitat Stamp Program Helping Wildlife Where it Counts . . .Where Wildlife Lives Orientation to Citizen Advisors 12-07
What is the Habitat Stamp Program? • A management process authorized under the federal Sikes Act • A funding mechanism for on-ground habitat work • A mechanism for inter-agency interaction/collaboration • An agency/citizen partnership
HSP History • Began with Valle Vidal in 1986. • Progressive implementation onto other areas until statewide in 1991. • Has provided $12.4 million to habitat work with an additional $10.7 million matched by federal agencies and $1.1 million by sporting groups.
HSP Mission Statement Who HSPcooperators are What to provide ecologically diverse wildlife and fish habitats Where on USFS and BLM managed lands, How by involving the public in an effective, cost efficient, honest, and cooperative management process Why for enjoyment and useby the current and future generations of New Mexicans.
Guiding Documents • Sikes Act • HSP Regulation • Memorandum of Understanding • Statewide Strategic Plan • Five Regional Plans • Procedure Manual
The Sikes Act (Public Law 93-452, 16USC670g-k) • Allows for a fee to be collected • Mandatory for hunters, anglers, & trappers • Generates approximately $1 million/year • Limits expenditures to conservation & rehabilitation projects: protection propagation research/census live-trapping & transplantation law enforcement regulated taking habitat management access to public land (limited)
What has the HSP Accomplished? 1986-2006 • Vegetation 538,000 ac. • Riparian 10,000 ac. • Waters 637 • Surveys 700 • Fisheries 72 • Transplants 15
Annual HSP Calendar Year around Seek public participation Sept 1 - Jan 31 Agencies design projects Jan 31 Project proposals due Jan - Mar Inter-agency meetings Mar - May CAC meetings Jun 1 Accomplishment-reports due Jun SGC approval of projects/budget Jul-Sep Funds allocated Jul 1 Project-work begins
HSP Organization NE Region CAC
Role of Citizen Advisor • Extension of the State Game Commission (provide values) • Provide citizen oversight • Think long-term/statewide • Articulate desires (what you want the habitat to look like) • Remove impediments • Provide representation, but promote cooperation • Encourage performance
Collaborative decision-making process Publicly supported funding source Checks and balances Public participation process Cooperative environment Professional expertise Integrity Strengths of HSP
Limited personnel/lowering agency priority Lack of project-effectiveness monitoring Inadequate education and outreach Increasing maintenance needs Increasing cost and inefficiency due to regulatory compliance Weaknesses of HSP
Loss of purpose Slippage in agencies’ priority Loss of public/sportsmen support Reduction in license sales Use of funds other than for accepted purposes Failure to show results Threats to HSP
Funding Allocation Formula • Regional Allocations • Northwest 14.4% • Southeast 24.8% • Southwest 19.8% (Minimum of • Central 18.6% 35% to • Northeast 22.4% each agency) • Percentages based on 1991 landmass and sporting-use of landmass
Impediments to Spending $ • Disasters (e.g. fire danger, lawsuits) • Increased regulations (e.g. NEPA compliance, archeological clearances, endangered spp. considerations) • Higher priorities (e.g. reduce fire danger, oil & gas permitting, grazing permitting, endangered spp., etc.) • Differing state & federal funding timelines
How to overcome impediments? • Fewer, but larger-scale projects • Improved planning • Address maintenance issues • Increased public oversight
What does the HSP need from the concerned citizens? • Support and • Engagement atparticipatory & activist levels.