Meeting objective: Receive an update on status of Federal Recovery Plan and proposed critical habitat designation. Discuss goals and objectives of the state management plan, and how plan can best fit in with national recovery efforts. Develop a working outline around which the plan will be written.

Eileen Dowd Stukel – SD GF&P

Dave Lucchesi – SD GF&P

Jeff Shearer – SD GF&P

Connie Vicuna - NRCS

Dave Graves – SD DOT

Vernon Tabor – US FWS

Joan Bortnem – SD DOT

Natalie Gates – US FWS

Ginger Massie – Federal Hwy. Admin.

Pete Gober – US FWS

Pete Jahraus – SD Dept. of Ag.

Andy Mitzell – USACE

George Cunningham – Univ. Nebraska Omaha

Administrative details: The meeting began with participants introducing themselves. No additions were made to the agenda. Eileen Dowd Stukel gave a brief summary of the first meeting’s objectives and accomplishments.

Update on Federal Topeka Shiner Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat Designation: Vernon Tabor gave an update on the status of the critical habitat designation and federal recovery plan. The proposed rule for Topeka shiner critical habitat was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2002. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) shortly after held a series of public meetings in each state of the shiner’s range. The USFWS will accept public comments submitted by October 21, 2002. An Environmental Assessment is being published for the critical habitat designation, as well as an Economics Analysis. Final draft of the Economics Analysis may be completed by mid-December. Another round of public hearings will follow the Economics Analysis. There may be a possible extension on the August 13, 2003 deadline for the final ruling on critical habitat.

The Federal Topeka Shiner Recovery Plan (Federal Plan) is still in internal review. Vernon was uncertain at this point when the Federal Plan will be made available for public comment. The plan is completed from the perspective of the Topeka Shiner Recovery Team. However, with the Federal Plan in internal review and subject to change, South Dakota can not be certain that state management goals we set will directly support national objectives. Pete Gober suggested using the existing draft Federal Plan to draft a Recovery Outline to allow South Dakota and other states to comment on the national recovery direction, particularly from the standpoint of state management planning. Pete proposed that he and Vernon work together to make the Recovery Outline available for outside comment as soon as possible. This step would allow South Dakota to describe its management planning intent, including the state’s intent to use a science-based planning approach that may result in recovery goals that differ from South Dakota’s recovery commitment in the Recovery Outline. Pete suggested that the comment letter also include a date by which South Dakota expects a response from the USFWS regarding this planning approach.

Several questions were raised in the discussion that followed. What will individual state roles be in the Federal Plan? The three basins in South Dakota (James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux) are included in Primary Recovery Unit 3. Recovery criteria for this unit will be to maintain or increase populations over a 10-year period. Missouri has set higher recovery criteria in their state plan than that listed in the Federal Plan.

Does Federal Plan become the benchmark for states to follow? The Federal Plan is a working plan the USFWS follows for recovery of the species. South Dakota has the opportunity to set its own benchmark through a USFWS approved state plan. Thus, South Dakota is not necessarily bound to criteria set by the Federal Plan as long as state plan criteria are based on "real science" and in sync with national recovery efforts. Given that Topeka shiners have a relatively higher abundance and distribution in South Dakota, our state plan has opportunities for flexibility that may not be possible in other parts of the shiner’s range. We may want to err on the conservative side with our recovery goals at first until more information is available on the status of Topeka shiner populations in South Dakota. George Cunningham noted that we should be focusing on ranges of populations, not static numbers. This would take into account for natural fluctuations that populations may experience due to wet and dry years. This may require GIS analyses of populations, watersheds, and stream dynamics. The group also discussed the benefits of a Habitat Conservation Plan, which allows take of a listed species. Pete described his perspective that the USFWS’s role in state planning efforts is to engage states in proactive rather than punitive actions related to endangered species.

Meeting attendants provided input as to what their agency’s interest in the state plan would include. Consensus was that the state plan should work towards delisting of the Topeka shiner.

SD Dept. of Agriculture – Work towards a goal of delisting the species if possible. Continuance of the watershed programs will be key if this goal is to be reached. We should be focusing on the watershed concept (i.e. managing watersheds instead of individual fish).

SD Dept. of Transportation – Work towards delisting of the species. DOT plans to improve its track record on project impacts to Topeka shiners. Dave Graves addressed the need to be able to continue highway stream crossing projects during the spawning period (late May – end of July). It is possible that a management plan would avoid the need for Section 7 consultation on DOT projects if conservation guidelines are written into the plan to allow for some take while still conserving the shiner. Specific concerns must be addressed and worked into the plan from the beginning. Best management practice guidelines developed by SD DOT and USFWS can be included as a specific strategy to address threats listed in the state plan. Joan Bortnem has been in contact with the Minnesota DOT about their protocol for similar situations; in Minnesota, the USFWS provide on-site guidance on projects.

Natural Resource Conservation Service – Would also like to see species delisted. Need to establish some sort of flexibility for land users, perhaps through a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). State plan needs to develop options that would be available for private land users and owners.

SD Game, Fish & Parks – Ultimate goal of delisting the species. Need to identify research needs that could later be used in management of the species.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Would like to see eventual delisting of the species if possible. USACE works with landowners and agencies (e.g. SD DOT) on a daily basis on projects involving endangered species. There is a need to know how other agencies are dealing with stream issues involving the Topeka shiner.

Will an approved state management plan open the door for increased federal funding for state conservation programs? A state plan may help in redirecting or reprioritizing existing funding, but probably won’t bring new Dept. of Interior funding into the state especially since federal grant programs are always changing from year to year. An important criterion for agricultural program funding is how many concerns you can address with a given amount of money. A state plan may add to funding justification for watershed projects. State plan would add benefit points for programs such as CRP or WRP. Eileen Dowd Stukel indicated that a large portion of state funding is year to year, but it’s human resources that are usually the limiting factor. Pete Jahraus noted that many federal and state conservation programs are in place, we’ve just never looked at them from a Topeka shiner standpoint.

The group discussed the need to review and summarize the state’s cumulative benefits and impacts to the Topeka shiner (i.e. what are the + and – for the shiner in the state? or "what is our state of affairs"?) This would require someone (most likely an outside contractor) to analyze GIS coverages of conservation easements, landuse coverages, point source impacts, areas of stream channelization/wetland drainage, etc. by county or by watershed. This analysis would provide an initial status of where we stand and areas we need to address. Most individual GIS coverages are available, but finding someone to compile and analyze all the coverages would be a time consuming and costly venture. It is possible that current ESA funding that was awarded to SDGFP could support the initial analysis, but these funds must be spent by September 30, 2003. One suggestion was that a project like this could be funded as an EPA 319 project. Need to address which entities would benefit most from this sort of information and make sure they are approached to assist with funding by someone in a leadership role, such as John Cooper, SDGFP.

State Management Plan Goal Statement and Working Outline: Jeff Shearer addressed the need to develop a tentative goal statement so he could move forward with writing the plan to meet this goal. Initial suggestions were to combine various agency interests (listed above). Plan must first include a statement addressing state agencies’ concern for the species. Goal statement will then state: 1) agency obligations for wildlife / resource protection, 2) plan’s intent to provide "special management considerations" for the shiner, 3) recovery goals / actions consistent with national recovery efforts, and 4) South Dakota’s contribution to national recovery efforts. Our overall goal will be the maintenance and enhancement of Topeka shiner populations over the long term while working towards delisting. More specific objectives under the goal will list the necessary steps to accomplish delisting.

One objective the group discussed was the need to develop a monitoring protocol to assess Topeka shiner population changes over time. The draft Federal Plan does not include a monitoring protocol. Jeff Shearer agreed to develop a monitoring protocol, which will later be sent out for "biological review" by outside entities. Jeff also noted that development of a protocol won’t be a problem, but finding the funding source and manpower to carry out the monitoring may be more difficult. The group agreed, but still felt a monitoring protocol must be included as part of the plan.

A few additions were made to the tentative plan outline (outline attached). Pete Gober suggested that state plan address the same impacts to Topeka shiners as those listed in the Federal Plan, which include the five listing criteria considered in all USFWS listing, downlisting, and delisting actions. In brief, these are: loss of habitat or range; overutilization; disease or predation; inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors. The state plan would then address the perceived threat (if any at all), magnitude, and immediacy of those threats. The discussion of threats, such as for tiling issues, needs to be specific, in order to identify the appropriate remediation strategies.

What will be covered at the next meeting (mid-December)? Development of a more complete outline of threats and strategies. Jeff Shearer will develop a list and send it out for review prior to the meeting. Jeff will also draft a shiner population objective that gives the population range (either population numbers or number of occurrences in given watersheds) to be listed in the state plan. We may wish to invite a larger list of attendants at the next meeting to gain extra input. There should be enough input following the next meeting to finish a draft of the state plan. The deadline for the final draft is the first part of April 2003.

[ Wildlife Diversity Home | SD Home | GFP Home | Help ]