Meeting objective: To gain input from agency partners on direction and priorities for state management plan development for the Topeka shiner in South Dakota.

Administrative details: All participants introduced themselves, and the group reviewed the agenda for possible additions or changes. No agenda changes were made, although two questions were raised (What is the status of South Dakota’s Topeka shiner populations as compared to historical distribution within the state and compared to other parts of the species’ range? Can a distinction be made between populations in the northern and southern portions of the species’ range?)

PART I – STATUS AND UPDATES OF RELATED PROJECTS

Status of recovery team activities and relationship to South Dakota management planning – Dave Lucchesi, SDGFP:

Dave Lucchesi is SDGFP’s representative to the Topeka Shiner Recovery Team. Dave related that there has been little activity by the Team on the plan for the past 9 months. In September 2001, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began an internal review of the draft recovery plan. Their Asst. Regional Director suggested revisions to better link recovery tasks with identified threats. Vernon Tabor completed another draft in May 2002, with publication of a request for public comment desired before August 2002, when the draft critical habitat designation is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register.

Dave described the overall purpose of the recovery plan. Pete Gober described agency roles and the various opportunities for review and comment. Comments dealing with identified threats to Topeka shiners will be helpful during the plan review process. Dave stated that population survey data collection is good throughout much if not most of the range. Chuck Berry stated that team meetings were held in all states within the species’ range, and that species experts and field personnel had opportunities to attend meetings. Dave brought copies of an M.S. thesis recently completed in Minnesota under Jay Hatch.

The general objective for South Dakota in the plan is to maintain current populations. The point was made that South Dakota should not have to carry an unfair recovery load by maintaining all existing populations compared to other states, which may only need to maintain the few remaining populations. The group discussed the role of the management plan to try to avoid the punitive aspects of listing. Question: Must the state’s management plan be approved by the USFWS? Answer: The USFWS will scrutinize the document and make it available for comment by the public before it can be formalized in a legal agreement.

Management Plan Preparation – Jeff Shearer, SDGFP:

Jeff stated that the purpose of today’s meeting is to gather input from affected agencies. He described the components of Missouri’s management plan (life history, habitat, state goals, threats and strategies to address threats, tasks, pertinent government programs, monitoring plan/protocol, progress reporting).

The plan should be completed by December 2003. However, Pete raised the issue that with the upcoming publication of the draft critical habitat designation, August 2003 may be a better endpoint. If South Dakota’s plan is finalized prior to that date, South Dakota would likely be exempted from critical habitat. At present, the USFWS believes that a final plan will suffice for that purpose. Several participants commented that many ongoing programs related to water quality and quantity (nonpoint source programs, baseline data collection activities) can be included as progress for the Topeka shiner.

Chuck Berry stated that Missouri has on-the-ground activities in all 3 watersheds that contain Topeka shiners, and that they are considering other sites for future establishment of populations. According to Lucchesi, they may have lost Topeka shiners in one of these watersheds.

A suggestion was made that the monitoring portion of the state plan should reference ongoing watershed projects, such as EMAP and various 319 projects.

Critical Habitat Designation – Natalie Gates, USFWS:

Two handouts – "Critical habitat – What is it?" and "ESA definitions of conservation and critical habitat"

The species was listed in December 1998. Because of a lawsuit filed by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, the USFWS is preparing critical habitat for the Topeka shiner, which should be published in August 2002 in draft form, followed by a 60-day public comment period. Public hearings will be held in every state. The final rule would then be published one year later. Topeka shiner critical habitat will only include occupied habitats. The designation only affects projects with a federal nexus. Natalie circulated a map showing the Topeka shiner distribution in South Dakota; critical habitat might include only portions of certain streams. Some of the factors considered during critical habitat discussions include connectivity, hydrology, biology, and ecology of the species, collection dates, frequency of collection records. The State of Missouri and Fort Riley, Kansas will likely be excluded from critical habitat because of existing management plans that provide conservation benefits to the species, provide assurances that the actions will be implemented, and include activities that will help meet stated objectives.

Genetic Diversity Analysis of Topeka Shiner Populations – Shane Sarver, Black Hills State University:

Shane briefly described the field of conservation genetics and how genetics data can be used in conservation planning for a species such as the Topeka shiner. Shane stated that an effort to conserve biodiversity is an effort to conserve genetic diversity. Genetic analyses may detect differences among populations or they may indicate that there are no genetic differences among populations. If you find differences, the management goal should be to maintain the largest number of populations, which maintains genetic diversity. With no differences detected, the management goal should be to maximize the number of individuals. Shane analyzed Topeka shiners from the three occupied drainages in South Dakota and found no genetic differences among them using mitochondrial d-loop sequences. He has developed DNA fingerprinting models, which can determine parentage and identify individual fish. He plans to apply these findings to South Dakota samples and other areas. The study conducted in Kansas included individuals from one South Dakota population and showed strong genetic variability, contrasted with Shane’s findings of low genetic variability. South Dakota’s populations are genetically similar to fish from southwestern Minnesota.

Shane’s preliminary results have found no evidence for distinct populations in South Dakota. His recommendation is that the management goal should be to maximize the number of individuals, rather than emphasizing the number of populations. It’s unknown why little genetic variation was found among South Dakota’s Topeka shiner populations; perhaps not enough time has elapsed for populations to diverge. Shane is trying to obtain samples from researchers in Kansas, with limited success. Shane pointed out that it is important to define "population." Shane’s genetic markers are "neutral markers." Some markers are sensitive to demographic characteristics, such as detecting bottlenecks. His new research will attempt to test adaptive vs. nonadaptive changes across the species’ range. No one else is presently conducting genetics work on Topeka shiners.

Genetic considerations are important in reintroductions, such as in determining source populations and selecting individual fish to avoid siblings. Chuck Berry pointed out that the loss of a single species in a drainage is important. Topeka shiners often occur in naturally low abundance. Can you force it to become abundant? This species is doing well in South Dakota "by accident," due to the lack of stockdams in East River, low wetland drainage rates compared to other states, and land use patterns.

Topeka Shiner Studies at SDSU – Chuck Berry, USGS-BRD:

handout related to general species characteristics and culvert study

Chuck described the methodology and results of their survey at culvert sites, where they detected 232 fish at 64 sites. Observed very few culverts that would prevent fish movement, although some placement improvement is needed. Chuck described this species as a generalist species with good survival abilities to withstand extreme conditions. He described the various types of assistance provided to agencies and individuals interested in specific site locations for Topeka shiners. 42 new sites have been identified in South Dakota since listing, 87% of which are historical sites. Densities are typically low. A variety of habitat data have been collected from known sites to help direct efforts to find new potential sites. Chuck described the potential role of GAP analysis in management planning; it is a potential tool to identify areas in need of conservation.

PART II – DISCUSSION TOPICS (led by Sarah Winkelman)

Role Identification of Participating Agencies:

Lower James RC&D (Deppey) -- mission is economic development that is resource-sustaining; driven by local interests; develops projects and finds funding for technical assistance and implementation

Randall RC&D (Labahn) -- similar mission to Lower James RC&D; interested in federal actions that may affect federal funding; may be able to assist with I&E efforts; want to stay informed on Topeka shiner issues and avoid potential conflicts

SD Dept. of Agriculture (Jahraus and Williams) -- represent state agricultural interests; have opportunities to fund projects that might assist Topeka shiners; interested in cooperating on a balanced approach to management that reduces landowner impacts

SD Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (Murphy and Selken) -- agency interest in water quality and quantity, water rights, 404, nonpoint source pollution; established programs that influence Topeka shiner habitats; have access to funding that may assist Topeka shiner habitats (ex: 319 program)

North Central RC&D (Timm) -- same comments as other RCDs

Natural Resources Conservation Service (Vicuna) -- implement conservation plans on private lands; most programs are voluntary; recent Farm Bill changes, such as progressive planning, may be relevant; administer CRP and WHIP; agency role is to protect species while avoiding negative impacts to landowners; many existing programs are consistent with Topeka shiner habitat needs (ex: water quality)

USFWS, Ecological Services (Gates and Gober) -- review federal activities related to implementation of Endangered Species Act; interested in seeing a successful state management plan

USFWS, Private Lands (Madsen) -- private land habitat improvement relating to water and grass; at present, not much involvement in riparian habitats; see grazing of riparian areas as a problem (riparian zones are fenced, but cattle are on wrong side of fence)

USFWS, Easement Program (Mowry) -- presently a lack of easements in riparian areas, but this could be adjusted in the future to support Topeka shiner management

East Dakota Water Development District (Milewski) -- has taxation authority to use as a match funding source; opportunity to become involved in watershed assessments at landscape levels; conducting land-use modeling; finding Topeka shiners in about 1/3 of sites sampled; can assist with disseminating technical information to local levels

Corps of Engineers (Kutz) -- Andy Mitzel will be the Corps representative at future meetings; role is to implement the 404 program under the Clean Water Act; involved with projects within Topeka shiner range; attach BMPs to 404 permits as special conditions

SDGFP (Lucchesi, St. Sauver and Olson) -- Dave can represent the recovery team’s perspective during plan development; fisheries biologists can provide technical expertise and provide a liaison role between Topeka shiner issues and the public; the small wetland habitat program works on both public and private lands and includes grazing system management on private lands; much interaction with other agencies and programs; can provide a connection to the private landowner; can provide a technical advisory role and an implementation role in riparian habitats

Black Hills State University (Sarver) -- can bring a background in conservation biology while providing technical input during state management planning

Technical Advisory Group:

Jeff described the various possible roles of the technical advisory group, such as review of plan drafts and attending planning and public meetings as needed. Individuals will consider whether they are interested in being part of the advisory group and let Jeff know within the next few weeks. In the meantime, Jeff will develop a general description of advisory group responsibilities and commitments. A suggestion was made that Vernon Tabor should present background information on the listing package and related items at the advisory group’s first meeting.

Private Landowner Programs:

The participants reviewed the existing list of programs and suggested that one be deleted (Priority Watershed Designation (EQIP &CRP) and others be added:

Federal (add Corps of Engineers to listing at beginning of list):

Grassland Reserve Program (Farm Bill, NRCS)

Conservation Security Program (Farm Bill, NRCS)

Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) (NRCS)

land acquisitions by USFWS, wetlands and grasslands

State:

Conservation Commission Grants (SD Dept. of Agriculture)

319 Nonpoint Source Program (SD DENR)

Connie Vicuna pointed out that many easements signed under WRP and EWP are not presently reflected in Chuck Berry’s land protection maps.

Outreach Strategies for Private Landowners:

• school involvement and related media coverage
• potential opportunities in Ag in the Classroom, Project WILD, Project Learning Tree
• existing school programs along Vermillion River as a model
• determine purpose of outreach
• Can Topeka shiner be used to tell a story? Topeka shiner as an indicator of biological diversity and healthy habitats.
• suggestion that an additional steering committee be formed to oversee the Advisory Group
• NPS Task Force meeting in September as opportunity for outreach; contact Duane Murphy
• SD Association of Conservation District meeting in September as opportunity for outreach; contact Angela Ehlers
• Conservation District newsletters; Angela is distributor and main contact
• target critical individual landowners with message
• Technical Advisory Group is a misnomer, since management plan development must involve many interests
• discussion that Topeka shiner message should include both positive and negative potential impacts to landowners
• Corps experience is that individual landowners are often more reasonable than developers in dealing with 404 restrictions
• issue of funding; probably is sufficient funding through existing programs, but there is a shortage of people to deliver programs
• use field tours with influential ag. entities at Topeka shiner sites

Next Meeting:

To be announced – probably in late August or early September

Attachments:

Invitation letter, agenda, and invitation list

Attendance list

Meeting evaluation

USFWS handouts on critical habitat

Chuck Berry’s handout on Topeka shiners work at SDSU

Studies of Topeka Shiner (Notropis topeka) Life History and Distribution in

Minnesota – Master’s Thesis, University of Minnesota

TO: Agencies interested in Topeka shiner management in South Dakota

FROM: Jeff Shearer and Eileen Dowd Stukel

SUBJECT: Upcoming interagency meeting

DATE: June 3, 2002

You are invited to an interagency meeting to discuss the development of a state management plan for the Topeka shiner, a federal endangered species. The meeting will be held on June 28, 2002 in Huron. The meeting location is Room 300-301 of the Federal Building, located at 200 4th Street SW in Huron.

The SD Game, Fish and Parks Department has received endangered species funding to develop a management plan that provides for the long-term needs of the Topeka shiner in South Dakota. We are seeking your input in developing a document that is feasible and biologically sound. We believe that South Dakota’s overall goal will be to maintain current populations and habitats, a much easier task than that of many of the other states within the species’ range, where habitat restoration will be necessary.

A South Dakota Topeka shiner management plan can accomplish several important tasks, including:

• identify state-specific activities that support national recovery needs;
• coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement;
• avoid the need to list critical habitat for the Topeka shiner in South Dakota; and
• determine private landowner interest in various partnership programs that are compatible with Topeka shiner needs;

Your agency is invited to the initial planning meeting because of your involvement in natural resource issues or private landowner interests that may affect Topeka shiner habitat. During this first meeting, we hope to bring everyone up-to-date on current Topeka shiner issues and to discuss general planning considerations for the plan’s biological components and public outreach activities. We will provide public input opportunities at future meetings and at other forums.

If you are not able to attend this meeting or feel that another person in your agency is a more appropriate participant, please forward this information as needed. Thank you for your interest in Topeka shiner management in South Dakota.

Attachments: distribution list and agenda

Eileen Dowd-Stukel    SD GF&P

Jeff Shearer    SD GF&P

Sarah Winkelman     SD GF&P

Craig Milewski     EDWDD

Charles Berry, Jr.     SDSU

George Williams     SD Dept. of Ag.

Pete Jahraus     SD Dept. of Ag.

Pete Gober     US FWS

Natalie Gates     US FWS

Carl Madsen     US FWS

Craig Mowry     US FWS

Connie Vicuna     NRCS

Mike Kuck     NRCS

Carolyn Kutz     US COE

Shane Sarver     BHSU

Joby Timm     North Central RC&D

John Deppey     Lower James RC&D

Leslie Labahn     Randall RC&D

Tim Olson     SD GF&P

David Lucchesi     SD GF&P

Todd St. Sauver     SD GF&P

Duane Murphey     SD DENR

Gale Selken     SD DENR