Meeting objective: Develop a final list of Topeka shiner threats and management actions to be addressed in the state management plan.

Eileen Dowd Stukel – SD GF&P             Dave Lucchesi – SD GF&P

Jeff Shearer – SD GF&P                         Chad Switzer – SD GF&P

Duane Murphey – SD DENR                  Tim Olson – SD GF&P

Joan Bortnem – SD DOT                        Natalie Gates – US FWS

Kurt Forman – US FWS                         Pete Gober – US FWS

Pete Jahraus – SD Dept. of Ag.               Boyd Schulz – US FWS

George Williams – SD Dept. of Ag.         Connie Vicuna - NRCS

Andy Mitzel – USACE                            Michael Held – SD Farm Bureau

Jarrod Johnson – SD Cattlemens Assoc.  Ken Knuppe – SD Stockgrowers Assoc.

Steve Willard – SD Cattlemens Assoc.    Todd Anawski – SD Corn Growers Assoc.

Administrative details: The meeting began with participants introducing themselves. A presentation by Kurt Forman and a state plan, shiner listing, critical habitat designation overview by Pete Gober were added to the agenda.

Kurt Forman - The changing landscape of SD and the role of ranching in watershed conservation: Kurt gave a brief description on the role of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in the US FWS. The South Dakota landscape has experienced large changes over the past 90 years. Land has changed from a tall / mixed grass prairie to a mosaic of grasslands, farm lands, and urban areas. The loss of native grass in South Dakota from 1982 – 1997 was 1,089,300 acres (this was 1^st in the U.S.); however, CRP was not factored into this statistic. In 2001, approximately 40,000 acres of native grassland was converted. The best way to keep the native grassland is to keep ranchers on the landscape. Seventy-five percent of Partners projects involve ranchers. Based on cash crop receipts, livestock had generated more income than any other ranching or farming related activity in South Dakota up until 1996. Since 1996, tillage agriculture has produced more income in South Dakota. As of 1997, over one million acres of native grassland had been put into other forms of production. No statewide data exists for the past 5 years, but this trend is continuing when tracked at the county level. So how does the loss of native prairie affect streams? Engineering models show distinct changes in runoff rates. Stream flows become flashy following rainfall events and the amount of water a stream receives annually increases. These changes result in increased erosion rates, loss of groundwater inputs, and greater periods of intermittency. Models indicate that upland changes impact downstream areas. Landuse change in South Dakota is different from most other Midwestern states. Other states directly converted their native prairie for tillage agriculture. In South Dakota, native prairie was first used for range / grazing and then converted for tillage agriculture. One of the best advantages South Dakota has is that we still have a large amount of grassland to work with and preserve.

Pete Gober - Overview of listing of the Topeka shiner and federal recovery plan: Three steps in dealing with the listing of the Topeka shiner in South Dakota. 1) Address the listing of the species. The overall goal in listing a species is to work towards protecting the species so it can be delisted. As part of the listing of a species under the ESA, critical habitat is designated as well. In regards to the Topeka shiner, a court order forced the USFWS to designate critical habitat. The best way to address the state’s concern with critical habitat designation is through a state management plan. Having a state management plan in place prior to final ruling of critical habitat (proposed for August 2003) puts the planning process on an accelerated timeframe. 2) Comment on the draft Federal Recovery Plan. Comments should address specific terms in the draft federal plan. Should question the USFWS on listing of the Topeka shiner, what criteria were used in listing, etc. 3) Consider a petition to delist or downlist the shiner. One advantage of downlisting to threatened is the 4D rule for threatened species. If the Topeka shiner is not downlisted, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) may be the best option for the state. An HCP would tell the state what it could do, rather than what it can not do.

Following the overview several questions were raised. Does the state management plan counter any actions we should be taking to avoid critical habitat or delisting of the shiner? No, the state plan does not commit South Dakota to anything that would be counter to avoiding critical habitat. The plan states we are meeting our goals / objectives as a state, and thus should be excluded from critical habitat listing. If the shiner is delisted, the state management plan will help keep it off the list and from being relisted. What is the timeline for events and can you delist in less than 10 years? A timeline for events is difficult to determine because of many influencing variables. Five years is a possibility. Biologically, we could delist the Topeka shiner immediately, but from a regulatory standpoint this process would take much longer. Should a monitoring protocol be included in the plan that supports delisting? A monitoring protocol will be included in the plan that assesses watershed level changes over the next 5 to 15 years. Have other species been delisted at this point? Twenty-three species have been delisted, some went extinct, and others were recovered. Have to err on the side of the species when considering delisting. Does delisting require a baseline for data? Start with what data were used in the listing package, then address what has been added since listing and what has changed. It is important to identify a baseline and carefully tie any recovery objectives to the listing criteria.

Group discussion / comments regarding threat to the Topeka shiner in South Dakota: The group discussed additions and changes to the draft list of threats that had been sent out prior to the meeting. There should be a distinction between what we’re doing and what we’ve done in regards to current or past threats. Threats discussion should point out as many positives as it does negatives, addressing the positives will highlight why South Dakota’s Topeka shiner population still remains relatively intact. Gravel mining and municipal water use will be added under Resource Extraction. Water quality threats, such as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) or municipal discharges, will be added as well. It should be noted, however, that CAFOs and municipal discharges are permitted by the EPA and DENR and may not present a threat to watersheds in South Dakota. Those threats addressed under Loss and Modification of Range or Habitat will be reworded to address positives similar to other four threats that were discussed. Need to address the fact that watershed health has improved over the past 30 years through improvements in farming practices, such as no-till farming and land terracing, 319 projects, and programs such as CRP.

Regarding the impact of discussed threats, a distinction should be made between simple and synergistic effects. This can be included in a summation paragraph following each perceived threat. The summation paragraph will address how South Dakota is addressing the above problem. If a threat is not immediate, South Dakota will take the following actions (discussed on the summation) to keep the threat at a low concern. Should include natural threats (drought) as well? Yes, natural threats will be dismissed since they are beyond state control. The idea being to dismiss as many threats that may arise. Any potential threat that is not addressed may be questioned during review of the plan. Should Missouri’s state plan be considered the standard? No, since South Dakota will take a different approach than Missouri. We do not want to be held to Missouri’s standards since our shiner populations have a much larger distribution. It is important to take an offensive approach. Identify which threats the state can handle and focus management actions on those threats.

Baseline data for landuse change need to be established as well. This can be obtained from National Resources Inventory, National Wetlands Inventory, and Landsat Imagery databases. Monitoring protocol should include assessment of landuse change along with fish or stream habitat. What is taking place on the landscape? This is what we need to monitor.

Group discussion / comments regarding management actions for the Topeka shiner in South Dakota: Need to number objectives / strategies so they match up and can be linked back to the threat being addressed. The management plan objectives will be reorganized to focus on the three main issues concerning Topeka shiners and their habitat 1) Hydrology, 2) Geomorphology, and 3) Water Quality. Thus, any management strategies or tasks would fall under one or more of these three concerns. For example, urbanization would be addressed under water quality, or gravel mining would be addressed under geomorphology. A brief problem description will also be added following each objective. Regulatory incentives will be added as tools along with voluntary financial or cost share incentives for each task. For example, CAFOs require a permit from the EPA, municipal discharge is permitted by the DENR, impoundments require a 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. A number of issues were discussed that are relevant to land and stream stewardship, but they may be beyond the influence of the state management plan. An example is crop selection opportunities under CRP.

The next Topeka shiner state plan meeting will focus on the public outreach / education portion of the plan.