Meeting objective: To review and discuss the Public Outreach portion of the state management plan, to discuss Safe Harbor Agreement possibilities, and to review other topics needing further consideration.

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

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

Jarrod Johnson – SD Cattlemen’s Assoc     Wayne Smith – Farm Bureau

Joan Bortnem – SD DOT                            Natalie Gates – US FWS

Dennis Clarke – SD DENR                         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                                Colin Niehus – NRCS

Ken Knuppe – SD Stockgrowers                Mike Stahly - SD Cattlemen's Assoc

Brian Brockel – SD Cattlemen’s Assoc       Merrill Karlen – SD Cattlemen’s Assoc

Tonya L. Ness – SD Cattlemen’s Assoc      Carrie Longwood – SD Stockgrowers

Mark Hollenbeck – SD Stockgrowers         Rick Fox – SD Stockgrowers

Ray Sowers – SD Dept. of Ag

Administrative details: The meeting agenda was change to add time to discuss various topics needing further consideration and shortening the amount of time allocated to discuss public outreach.

Public Outreach / Education: The main purpose for this portion of the plan is to relay the general message of what we’re trying to do. The public outreach portion will develop a course of action in dealing with the Topeka shiner, identify was role South Dakota is playing on national recovery level, what we are doing to work towards delisting, and establish validity by identifying why the plan is important. Other areas to cover include basic issues regarding the Topeka shiner in South Dakota, answer questions of why, what, and how regarding the state plan, and describe what the state has done, is doing, and will do in the future regarding Topeka shiner management. Three groups were identified as targets for outreach strategies: landowners, cooperating entities (state agencies, NGOs, etc.), and others (all citizens of South Dakota). In regards to landowners, it is important to address why we are drafting a state plan and how landowners fit into the overall scheme. Cooperating entities need to understand the issues because of their role in representing other constituents. Overall, the message will be the same for each group. Specific outreach suggestions included: NRCS internal memo; monthly mailing to conservation districts; Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Assoc., Corn Grower’s Assoc., and FSA newsletters; and county meetings. A link will be added connecting Topeka shiner state plan website to USFWS Topeka shiner site.

The following discussion focused on how to make the state plan more specific in regards of avoiding critical habitat designation in South Dakota. The difficulty in having a state plan that is adequate enough to substitute for Section 7 of the ESA is combining biological aspects with policy / regulatory aspects. The following strategies were proposed as a way of working towards delisting and managing the Topeka shiner. The first strategy is to petition for downlisting from endangered to threatened. Species listed as threatened can be managed more flexibly under the 4D rule. The next strategy is to petition for delisting of the shiner. A petition to delist should specifically address those listing criteria originally used and state current information regarding shiner biology, distribution, etc that was not known at time of listing. A species can still be downlisted or delisted if critical habitat is designated. What has the state done to work towards delisting? A species can be delisted for part of its range if there are distinct population differences based on genetics. SDGF&P is currently contracting Black Hills State University to conduct genetics research on Topeka shiners in South Dakota. Results of this research are not available at this time. If the Topeka shiner is only stable in South Dakota, how do we make the case it should be delisted range wide? Need to make an argument that based on available habitat conditions, population levels exist in a significant portion of the shiner’s range. What constitutes a significant portion of the species range is difficult to say, it may be 80%, 60%, 50%… Federal listing of the sturgeon chub was avoided when it was determined the species still occupied 50% of its range.

The third strategy is to develop a state management plan to avoid critical habitat designation. In order for a state plan to avoid this designation, the plan must demonstrate functional equivalency with regards to Section 7 of the ESA. However, it is difficult for a state plan to demonstrate functional equivalency, so an alternative approach was suggested. A better approach is to meet recovery goals. The draft Federal Recovery Plan has set a recovery goal for South Dakota to maintain and protect all (100%) of our Topeka shiner populations. We feel this is an unrealistic goal and leaves no room for management of the species. SDGF&P submitted comments on the federal plan addressing this issue. The management plan provides us with an opportunity to state what we feel our recovery goal should be. Current federal recovery goals are broad. Recovery goals listed in the state plan should be much more specific. If a state plan is not sufficient enough to exclude critical habitat in South Dakota, the next strategy is to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An HCP would tell the state what it can do, as opposed to the ESA, which lists what can not be done. Under an HCP the state and USFWS would agree upon a goal and the state would manage towards that goal. For example, if the state is managing for a set population and anything above that set number is "buffer." A state management plan would be a critical part of an HCP.

The following state recovery goal was proposed: To maintain biotic integrity in 70% of Topeka shiner streams in eastern South Dakota. The focus on biotic integrity allows for natural fluctuations in Topeka shiner populations while still focusing on watershed health. Another suggestion was to establish a management plan goal based on a point system. For example, the state will propose to manage towards a set level of points (possibly a 1000 or 1500) where each Topeka shiner occurrence counts towards the overall point total. High quality streams would contribute more points than occurrences in dugouts or low quality sites. By meeting its point total, the state would be meeting its recovery goal. Anything above this point total would allow for more management flexibility. The state plan will list a recovery goal similar to those above, justification, and modes of action for meeting this goal. We will make the argument that we are currently exceeding our recovery goal (i.e. we’re at 2500 points in a 1500 point plan).

Safe Harbor Agreements: While Safe Harbor agreements may not be as beneficial to the state as an HCP, we must still address the Safe Harbors issue to satisfy proposal objectives linked to funding for the state plan. Simply listing the Safe Harbor program along with other programs in the plan may be sufficient enough to accomplish the proposal objective. An example of a possible Safe Harbor agreement would be for landowners allowing access to stream sites on their land for monitoring purposes. Safe Harbor agreements must have a "net conservation benefit" for the species and the landowner may return to "baseline" at the end of the agreement. In this case, the net conservation benefit to the shiner would be allowing the state to monitor and assess its status from year to year and the return to baseline would simply be the landowner reserving the right to refuse access to the stream site. Further information regarding Safe Harbor agreements is available at: http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/harborqa.pdf.

The following discussion focused on how the monitoring portion of the plan will determine whether the state is meeting its recovery goal. Those streams with Topeka shiner locations documented between 1997-2002 (38 tributaries) will be used as a baseline for the monitoring protocol. If two sites are sampled in every stream, this will provide 76 sampling locations to monitor watershed health. Each site should be sampled once every two summers (38 sites / summer). After initial data collection, it may be determined that sampling each site once every 5 or 10 years is appropriate. However, the life history of the species must be considered. The Topeka shiner usually lives 2 years, so monitoring on a 10-year interval may not detect declines in population levels soon enough. Fish community data combined with habitat and landuse assessments will be used to judge stream health. Various measures (or metrics) can be scored based on the present fish community to assess a site’s condition. Some metrics may directly measure Topeka shiner abundance or condition; others may measure fish species richness or trophic structure in general. By focusing on the entire fish community, the natural variation associated with fluctuations in individual species’ populations will not mislead overall stream health evaluations. However, since this monitoring protocol is designed to assess conservation of the Topeka shiner, some metrics will be weighted more heavily based on the presence / absence of this species.

The meeting was wrapped up by discussing other entities or persons who should review a draft copy of the plan in addition to the current distribution list. Those entities / persons suggested include:

US Geological Survey SD Grasslands Coalition

Flandreau Sioux Tribe SD Resources Coalition

Farmer’s Union

Chuck Clayton – Vice President of the Isaac Walton League

Topeka Shiner Federal Recovery Team Members

Association of Town and Township Governments

NRCS field support offices in Pierre and Brookings

District conservationists and Conservation Dist Supervisors in Topeka shiner counties

Dennis Unkenholz, Chad Tussing, and Todd St. Sauver – SDGF&P

Dakota Chapter of the American Fisheries Society President – Steve Krenz

A draft copy of the plan should be available for review from the 3^rd week in February through the 3^rd week in March. A news release in GFP News will notify the public on the plan’s availability. Additionally, the draft plan will be posted on the GF&P website.