South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange South Dakota State University Agricultural Bulletins Experiment Station

7-1-1995 Watershed Management Workshop for the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux Rivers C. L. Milewski

C. R. Berry

S. Wyman

Follow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/agexperimentsta_bulletins

Recommended Citation Milewski, C. L.; Berry, C. R.; and Wyman, S., "Watershed Management Workshop for the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux Rivers" (1995). Bulletins. Paper 724. http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/agexperimentsta_bulletins/724

This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the South Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. B 720

North Dakota

Minnesota

South Dakota

Nebraska WATERSHED MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP FOR THE J.AMES, VERMILLION, AND BIG SIOUX- RIVERS

February 7-8, 1995 • Crossroads Hotel • Huron, South Dakota

Agricultural Experiment Station • South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit • South Dakota State University

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources • South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks

Natural Resources and Conservation Service, USDA • National Biological Service, DOI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP FOR THE

JAMES, VERMILLION, AND BIG Sioux RIVERS

C.L. Milewski

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University Brookings, S.D.

C.R. Berry

National Biological Survey Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University Brookings, S.D.

S. Wyman

Natural Resources Conservation Service Brookings, S.D.

B 720 Agricultural Experiment Station • South Dakota State University • U.S. Department of Agriculture PREFACE

Rivers have become prominent subjects for natural resource personnel and the public. There are new ripari­ an and wetland programs, controversial flooding and water quality issues, proposed water development projects, and innovative thinking about ecosystem management.

The Watershed Management Workshop for the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers was developed to bring people, projects, problems, and programs together from the watersheds to discuss current and future needs for management, research, and cooperative efforts.

The workshop opened with a discussion of basic principles of terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic components of a watershed and was followed by a case history of a watershed management program in Minnesota. This set the stage for a discussion of specific projects and programs that are underway on the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux River watersheds.

It is our hope that this workshop was a step in cooperative management of these watersheds and in the con­ tinuing education needed by all involved in watershed and ecosystem management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the speakers and poster presenters for contributing to the success of the workshop. In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, and South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for sponsoring the workshop. The Coop Unit is jointly sponsored by South Dakota State University, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the National Biological Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Steering Committee: Sandra Wyman, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Chuck Berry, South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit Craig Milewski, SDSU Graduate Student

... for the last 50 years, the Jim River has been a source of good fishing, good recreation for the family and for our retirement years, and good comradeship with fellow fishermen. While the Jim may be the lowest of rivers we hold it in the highest esteem. Rather be small and shine than be large and cast a shadow.

George Nikolas and Tony Gefre Aberdeen, S.D. CONTENTS

Preface, Acknowledgements

Introduction, Watershed Management Workshop. Tim Bjork ...... 1

Watershed Concepts ...... 3 Design, Function, and Management of Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip Systems

Thomas M. Isenhart, Richard C. Schultz, and J. P. Colletti ...... 4

Vegetation and Stream Processes. W. Carter Johnson ...... 6 Predicting the Behavior of Watersheds: the James River as an Example

Thomas Van Lent ...... 7

Grazing Management: a Watershed Approach. David W. Schmidt ...... 9

Agronomic Management in Watersheds. Keith L. Hamer ...... 11

Ecosystem Management. Craig L. Milewski ...... 13 Long-term Comprehensive Planning for the Whitewater Watershed, Minnesota:

A Partnership Approach. Larry Gates ...... 15

Projects and Programs ...... : ...... 19 Natural Resources Conservation Service Programs and Interest in Watershed Management. Leroy Holtsclaw ...... 20 U.S. Geological Survey Data Collection and Interpretive Studies in the James,

Vermillion, and Big Sioux River Basins in South Dakota. Rick D. Bensen ...... 22 Water Districts: Projects, Problems, and Politics. James Adamson ...... 25

Game, Fish and Parks Streams Program. Ronald Koth ...... 26

Big Sioux Aquifer Water Quality Demonstration Project Area. Jay Gilbertson ...... 28

Permit and Project Review. Scott Larson ...... 30

The Big Sioux River in Iowa. Jim Christianson ...... 32 River Fishery Ecology and Status of Fishes in Sout, Dakota's Eastern Rivers

Dougla.s J. Dietermen and Charles R Berry ...... 34 An Overview of Watershed Management Activities in theUpper James River

Basin in North Dakota. Gene Van Eeckhout ...... 36

Wildlife Values of the James, Big Sioux and Vermillion Rivers. Ron Schauer ...... 38 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Partners forWildlife Program" in

South Dakota. Carl R Madsen ...... 39

South Dakota Riparian Area Classification System. Leonard Pat Kuck ...... 40

Recent Corps of Engineers Efforts in Eastern South Dakota. Kenneth S. Cooper ...... 42

Discussion of the Corp's Section 10/404 Regulatory Program. Steve Naylor ...... 44 South Dakota's Surface Water Quality Standards and Supportive

Water Quality Monitoring. Joan M. Bortnem ...... 46

East River Riparian Area Demonstration Project. Sandra K. Wyman ...... 48

FEMA's Watershed Management Activities in South Dakota. Gary N. Whitney ...... 50 Non point Source Control Program. Duane Murphey ...... 52

State Conservation Commission Grants. Keith L. Hamer ...... 54 River Services an� Problems forRiver-side Communities

Todd M. Loomis and Charles R Berry ...... 56

Water Appropriation in South Dakota. Ron Duvall ...... 57

Background Information on James River Restoration Project. Darryl Raschke ...... 58

Other Information Workshop Attendees: Opinions and River Uses Charles R Berry and Craig L. Milewski ...... 61

Selected South Dakota Water Resoun:es Education Resources. Chris D. McCart ...... 66

Selected Information Sources for Watershed-related Management ...... 68

Appendices

Appendix A. Responses to Workshop Survey Questions ...... 71

Appendix B. List of Workshop Attendees ...... 77 The art of land doctoring is being practiced with vigor, but the science of land health is ye t to be born.

Aldo Leopold, 1949 Sand County Almanac INTRODUCTION, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP

Tim Bjork

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 523 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome Third: How do you define an ecosystem? to Huron and the Watershed Management Workshop for the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers. My And finally: What is watershed management? name is Tim Bjork, and I am an employee of the South Although we in South Dakota operate under the prin­ _ Dakota Department of Environment and Natural ciple of watershed management in the Nonpoint Resources. Source Pollution Control Program, we probably shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is a naturally We have quite an extensive program planned for occurring management philosophy. In fact, in talking you for the next 2 days, so I won't take much of your with some drinking water managers last week, I found time with introductions. However, I would like to rec­ they were surprised to learn that there was a program ognize the South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife like ours that protects the "sources" of drinking water. Research Unit, the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the U. S. In conjunction with this discussion of "source Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources water protection," it struck me that there are several Conservation Service for sponsoring this workshop. constants that are very evident in any watershed man­ Let's thank Sandy Wyman, NRCS; Dr. Chuck Berry, agement program. I like to call them the ''Three C's­ SDSU, Duane Murphey, DENR; and Craig Milewski, Cooperation, Communication, and Coordination." SDSU, for putting this workshop together. Without these, the development and implementation of watershed programs and projects become very diffi­ Before we get started with the official program, cult, if not impossible. there are several questions that I would like all of you to consider as you listen to the presentations. Please Does this sound painfully simple? Painfully obvi­ think these questions through and provide your ous? Maybe it is, but count your blessings, folks, answers on the back of the survey form that was because the way we (and I mean all of us, not just passed out earlier. DENR!) do business is not all that common. In refer­ ence to the California drinking water people again, First question: What is a watershed? they were just astounded that our state agencies, uni­ Surprisingly, many of the questions that I get on versities, agricultural groups, and a host of others watersheds relate to size. Does this include ground­ were able to work so closely in solving problems. One water and air also? There is not a genuine under­ individual said he ''would give anything" to be able to standing of what each of us means when using the work in such a cooperative atmosphere! term "watershed." And, finally, although I don't see this element of Second: What is a riparian area? Many people watershed management listed specifically on the agen­ have never heard of the term. da, I know it's in there. To what do I refer? People!! Let's not forget to drinking water, pasture taps, wastewater treatment, or include us humans as we work on solving resource economic sustainability, watershed management deals problems. However simplistic it may sound, people with people and their needs. So, as we go about this and their needs are a critical element in the watershed business of ''watershed management," let's "us" not management equation. Let's fact it, folks, watershed forget to include "us" as we strive to balance the equa­ management is for and because of us! Whether it is tions.

Flood Flood Plain� CHANNEL -----�E---- Plain

Stream I

Bed Bank

RIPARIAN RIPARIAN-�

Typical stream cross section. showing the components of the channel and riparian zone. (U.S. Forest Service)

2 WATERSHED CONCEPTS

The first part of the workshop established the base. All the presenters stated the need for continued basic principles of watershed processes and manage­ observations, measurements, data analyses, and inter­ ment. An overview covered the physical, chemical, pretation to improve our management capabilities. and biological processes that govern the movement of The ability to foresee the short- and long-term social, energy and material resources within a watershed. economic, and biologic realities of our actions is posi­ Three interrelated themes were: 1) terrestrial-aquatic tively related to our knowledge base. linkages, 2) knowledge-based management, and 3) interdisciplinary cooperation. The third underlying theme was interdisciplinary management based on ecosystem concepts. In other Several presenters emphasized terrestrial-aquatic words, watersheds should be the basic ecosystem units linkages, in particular, the ties between riparian and for planning and management. One presenter stated upland areas. Many stated that managing riparian that the use of watersheds as management boundaries areas to intercept overland transport of energy and is not a new concept but one that must be revisited. material before they enter the waterway is more effec­ Two others outlined steps and rationale for ecosystem tive if upland conservation is being practiced. and planning approaches to watershed management Furthermore, alteration of upstream processes (move­ that were similar in that current and future conditions ment of sediment and water) can cause downstream are defined and agreed upon, choices are made, changes in streamside vegetation. actions are implemented, and results are monitored or evaluated. Adjustments are made as new information The second theme, knowledge-based manage­ becomes available. In summary, the overview on ment, means that land management over large areas watershed concepts conveyed the idea that managing and indefinite periods requires a solid knowledge and using the resources is a shared responsibility.

Everything is related to everything else in personal and functional ways and the land, if it were to remain fruitful must support all forms of life.

Vine Deloria. 1990 Standing Rock Sioux lawyer and educator

3 DESIGN, FUNCTION, AND MANAGEMENT OF MULTl· SPECIES RIPARIAN BUFFER STRIP SYSTEMS

Thomas M. Isenhart. Richard C. Schultz, and Joe P. Colletti

Department of Forestry Iowa State University Ames. Iowa 50011

The highly productive agricultural landscape of developed agricultural region of central Iowa in 1990. the midwestem United States yields substantial quanti­ The restored MSRBS systems have reduced sediment ties of non-point source (NPS) pollutants which find and chemicals moving with surface runoff by trapping their way into surface and ground waters. While upland over 90% of the material in the buffer zone where the conservation practices can reduce NPS pollution, it is plants and soil microbes can immobilize and metabolize the riparian zone immediately along the stream edge them. NPS pollutants moving through the soil solution which may contribute the most to NPS pollution. If this of the rooting zone or in the shallow ground water also zone is exploited by row crop agriculture or overgraz­ are reduced by over 90% to levels well below the maxi­ ing, NPS pollutants can be generated immediately adja­ mum contaminant levels allowed by the U.S. Environ­ cent to the stream. If riparian zone best management mental Protection Agency. Similar improvements in practices (BMP) are employed, this source of NPS pollu­ water quality are seen in water passing through the tile tion is eliminated and the riparian zone becomes a liv­ wetland, and streambanks are stabilized by living wil­ ing filter of NPS pollutants generated in the upland. low stems and associated grasses and forbs. Increased use of such buffer zones has the potential to greatly improve the environmental performance of the Beginning at the streambank edge, the first zone agricultural landscape. of the MSRBS is 10 m wide and contains four or five rows of rapidly growing trees, the second zone is A m The Agroecology Issue Team of the Leopold wide and contains one or two rows of shrubs, and the Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Iowa State third zone is 7 m wide and contains native, warm-sea­ Agroforestry Research Team (ISTART) are conducting son grasses. This zonation is important because the research on the design and establishment of multi­ trees and shrubs provide perennial root systems and. species riparian buffer strip systems (MSRBS). The plan long-term nutrient storage close to the stream, while is that the buffers will intercept eroding soil and agri­ the shrubs add more woody sterns near the ground to cultural chemicals from adjacent crop fields, slow flood slow flood flows and provide a more diversified wildlife waters, stabilize streambanks and reduce channel habitat. The native grasses provide the high density of movement, and improve in-stream environments, while sterns needed to dissipate the energy of surface runoff also providing wildlife habitat and biomass for energy and the deep and dense annual root systems needed to and high quality timber. The MSRBS system is an inte­ increase soil infiltration capacities and provide organic grated management system which also includes willow­ matter for large microbial populations. post soil bioengineering features to stabilize stream­ banks and constructed wetlands placed at the outlet of Fast-growing trees are needed to develop a func­ field drainage tiles to process agrichemicals contained tioning MSRBS in the shortest possible time. It is espe­ in tile flow before they enter the stream. cially important that rows 1-3 (the first row is the clos­ est to the streambank edge) in the tree zone (zone 1) The interdisciplinary teams began the research on include fast-growing, riparian species such as willows a private farm located along Bear Creek in a highly (Salix spp) and cottonwoods (Populus spp). If, through-

4 out the year, the rooting zone along the streambank is ing stream energy and trappingsedi ment and also pro­ more than 1.2 m above normal stream flow and soils vide shade and organic matter for instream biota. are well drained, then upland deciduous and coniferous Where there is a concernfor active undercutting of the trees and shrub species can be planted in rows 4 and 5. bank, bundles of eastern red cedar or small hardwoods Although these slower growing species will not begin to (3-4.5-m-long silver maples, willows, etc.) can be tied function as nutrient sinks as quickly as faster growing together into two- to four-tree bundles. A row of these species, they will provide a higher quality product to bundles is laid along the bottom-most row of willow the landowner. posts with the lower Shrubs are included trunks pointed in the design because upstreamand the their permanent roots The restored [buffer strips] have reduced sediment bundles anchored to help maintain soil sta­ and chemicals moving with surface ru noff by trap­ the willowposts or bility, their multiple ping over 90% of the material ... where the plants and streambank. stems help slow flood soil microbes can immobilize and metabolize them. flows, and their pres­ In areas of arti­ ence adds biodiversity ficial drainage, small and wildlife habitat. wetlands can be con­ Many native shrubs structed at the end of can be used and are often selected because of their field tiles to interrupt and process NPS pollutants before desirable wildlife and aesthetic values. they enter water bodies. A 0.5-1 m deep depression is constructed at the ratio of 1:100 (1 ha of wetland for The three-zone MSRBS model of trees, shrubs, 100 ha drainage) . A berm should be built along the and prairie grasses is well suited to agroecosystems of stream, stabilized on the stream side with willow cut­ the Midwest and eastern Great Plains. Although these tings, and seeded with a mixture of prairie grasses and species combinations provide a very effective riparian forbs. If a coarse textured soil is encountered, the bot­ buffer strip plant community, there are other combina­ tom of the wetland can be sealed with clay and topped tions that can be effective. Site conditions, major buffer with original soil. A gated control structure for control­ strip biological and physical functions, owner objec­ ling water level should be installed at the outflow into tives, and cost-share program requirements should be the stream. considered in specifying species combinations. In designing the wetland it is importantto It costs about $875 per ha to install the three-zone remember that most of the chemical transformation and MSRBS.This includes plant purchases, site preparation, retention occurs at or near substrates (sediments or planting, labor, and maintenance costs in the firstye ar. plant litter). Wetlands containing large amounts of veg­ About $50 per ha should be figured forannual mainte­ etation and decaying plant litter will thus have a much nance forthe first 3 to 4 years. greater capacity for pollutant removal. Any manage­ ment technique which accelerates vegetation establish­ Streambanksthat have been heavily grazed or ment (active regeneration) or litter buildup (addition of thathave had row cropsplant ed to the edge of the organic substrate) willimprove chemical retention. bank are often veryunstable and need extra protection beyond that provided by thevegetated bufferstrip. In The above recommendations will provide a these situations soilbioengineering techniques, such as MSRBS system that effectively intercepts and treats NPS the willowpost method, can be employed. On vertical pollution from the uplands. However, a MSRBS system or activelycutting streambanks, combinations of dor­ cannot replace \lpland conservation practices. In a prop­ mantwillow 'posts' are planted along with anchored erly functioning agricultural landscape both upland dead tree revetments to protect streambanks. These conservation practices and a MSRBS system should be plant materials provide a frictional surface forabsorb- in place.

5 VEGETATION AND STREAM PROCESSES

W. Carter Johnson

Department of Horticulture, Forestry, Landscape, and Parks South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 5 700 7

The subject of vegetation and stream dynamics is the channel, while others can only tolerate less dis­ complex because the associated biological and physical turbed areas away from thechan nel. processes are so strongly interactive. For example, the cross-sectional characteristics of rivers are partly deter­ Regµlation of rivers usually changes the extent mined by the type and extent of vegetation. Likewise, and location of riparianveget ation. Numerous studies the characteristics of vegetation occupying the flood­ have shown that altered flow and sediment transport plain depend on hydrology, sedimentation patterns, caused by dams and water diversions have dramatical­ and riverbed soils, among others. ly altered vegetation. In some cases, such as in the Platte River, riparian fore�t has expanded. In others, The product of this intense interaction is strong such as the Missouri River, it has disappeared or vegetation zonation horizontally and vertically. This changed type. Rivers respond individually to regula­ strong spatial patterning of vegetation is the result of tion, but enough research has now been conducted to the ability of some plant species to tolerate the hydro­ predict the general response of riparian vegetation to geomorphically active portions of the floodplain near human impacts.

6 PREDICTING THE BEHAVIOR OF WATERSHEDS: THE JAMES RIVER AS AN EXAMPLE

Thomas Van Lent

Department of Civil and En vironmental Engineering South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007

Hyrdrologists are in the business of predicting levels in major rivers. The Corps also began small­ the response of watersheds to various meteorological scale construction to make navigation easier. conditions, land use changes, and water management factors. However, our ability to make predictions The James River, although technically navigable, depends upon just what hydrologic process is under was rarely used forcommerce . Flood control became examination. The historical development of the sci­ an early concern, however. After thefloods of the ence of hydrology largely determines what it is that early 1920s, the state of South Dakota set up the hydrologists are good at, and the history of water James and Big Sioux Valleys Drainage District. Flood development in the James River is fairlyty pical of the control activities in the James have been going on history of hydrology in general. since. Currently, hydrologists and engineers are fairly well adept at predicting floods and calculating flood The development of the science of hydrology is mitigation steps. Also, hydrologists have a good under­ relatively recent. It owes its primary roots to standing of descriptive hydrology, statistical analysis researchers in engineering, forestry, and the physical of flood flows, and of rainfalVrunoffproc esses. sciences, among others. Historically, hydrologic prob­ lems have been focused in engineering, and this has With the "Dust Bowl" years of the 1930s, water had an enormous effecton what types of problems supply and watershed conservationpract ices became hydrologists are currently able to deal with effective­ important. "Water development" became synonymous ly. The quality of predictions depends upon how well with dam construction. The Missouri River dams are the underlying physical processes are understood and an example, with the Garrison Diversion Project being also on how long hydrologists have been working on an example of a proposal to use the James River for them. water supply. These problems spurred understanding of watershed processes like evapotranspiration and The societal level of concern or interest usually groundwater flow, fluvialproce sses such as sediment determineswhich hydrologic problems have been transport and meandering, and engineering design dealt with first. In order of historical interest, the and operation of systems. paramount hydrological problems have been naviga­ tion in rivers, flood control, water supply, pollution, Heightened public concernover pollution of sur­ and ecological problems. Thus, our abilities to make face and ground water led to another frontier of predictions roughly follow this hierarchy. hydrology. These problems were initially addressed by the Clean Water Act, where point sources of pollution Early in the 19th century, opening territories for (municipal sewage outfalls, e.g.) were treated. Along settlement and trade was a priority, and rivers were the James, cities from Aberdeen to Scotland were important fornavigatio n. Congress gave the Corps of required to treat water beforereleasing it. Currently, Engineers responsibility for navigation, and the Corps U.S. EPA plans increased efforts against nonpoint began a systematic measurement of flows and water source pollution, particularlyagricultural pollution.

7 The study of the fate and transport of contami­ This research is leading to advances in a number nants in watersheds led to a number of advances in of other areas. Hydrologists are currently working on hydrology. Today, hydrologists have a number of very modeling processes with diverse scales of action. This sophisticated simulation models to describe watershed includes research in geomorphology (predicting fluvial behaviorand transportof pollutants. These effortsalso behaviors like meandering, etc.) and in linking hydro­ led to betterde scriptions and to better accounting for logic models with the biosphere to predict response of the spatialvariability found in any natural system. key trophic levels of an ecosystem.

Environmental problems are currently the focus In summary, the ability of watershed hydrology of considerable public attention. This is also the topic to make a prediction depends upon the question sub­ of a great deal of hydrologic research. Past experiences mitted. Hydrologists generally have greatpr edictive have shown that small or piecemeal changes to water­ capabilities in engineering for flood control and water sheds can have profound impacts on habitats. They supply, modeling watershed processes, and predicting can also require unforeseen levels of investment in the the fate and transportof contaminants in surface and long term. Predicting environmental consequences ground v.:aters. Prediction of multiple-scale problems requires a very sophisticated hydrologic understand­ will require more development, as will the prediction ing, particularly in modeling how processes at differ­ of long-term consequences of a piecemeal approach to ence scales interact. water resources development.

dam, ;35 feet \ I

\ \ I I NORTH DAKOT�

S'Ouf;-oAi«>T.a.'I J I /AIERDU , I I I'--_,,.'--�:-- JAMES RIVER I '" eet V-..-----c-�--Spink County dam; 9 f I �-='---.---James liver diversion dam, 15 lee I

fee ll.01-..C'1<-�'--'---Third Slr••t dam, 9 t

' ' The James River Basin in North ' \ and South Dakota. with location ' I and heights of larger dams. Mis� ' (From U.S. Geological Survey) �

8 GRAZING MANAGEMENT: A WATERSHED APPROACH

David W. Schmidt

Natural Resources Conservation Service 200 4th Street SW Huron, South Dakota 57350

My task is to convince you thatproper grazing by a place to put livestock until crop residues are ready to domestic livestock both on the uplands and within the graze. I call this either the presence or absence of a riparian zones themselves should be considered as just grassland ethic. Since the physical location of many of one more management tool available for improving the remaiJling grasslands in eastern South Dakota is water quality and reducing flooding. Proper grazing by adjacent to ephemeral and perennial streams and rivers, domestic livestock is not the environmental calamity that the impacts on water quality are obvious. it is often portrayed. I use the term "proper grazing" to denote grazing management designed with the needs of Grazing patterns of the free ranging large herds of the plant, animal, soil, and water resources in mind and wild ungulates of eastern South Dakota prior to settle­ not the animal-centered grazing which is very predomi­ ment were quite different from the confined herds of nant throughout many of the watersheds that we are domestic livestock of today. Today the lack of use man­ concerned about in this conference. agement on many grazing lands has led to continued overgrazing of forage or the continued heavy utilization Grazing is a natural process. Before settlement, of forage on a yearly basis. Wild herds more than likely eastern South Dakota was home to hundreds of thou­ overutilized forage for short periods of time, but their sands of American bison, elk, antelope, and deer. All of free ranging nature probably prevented overgrazing. The these animals had to eat. Their grazing, along with the difference between overgrazing and overuse, although climate, developed the plant communities that the early apparently subtle, has often drastically changing species settlers found. There can be no doubt that these some­ composition, soil health, and hydrologic functions. times large herds of herbivores did overutilize the native vegetation. Distance between reliable water sources Research and technical assistance on grazing land would limit animal movement and, as with domestic management has often taken a back seat to the more vis­ livestock, areas within riparian zones often received the ible erosion seen on croplands. However, grazing lands brunt of grazing pressure. make up close to .60% of the lands in the state and thus are perhaps more important in terms of watershed values For the most part, early settlers in eastern South than any other lands. In addition, the largest sector of Dakota came to farm. They plowed the sod and planted this state's economy comes from the sale of livestock, wheat and corn. The land which was not plowed includ­ many of which depend on the forage from grazing lands ed the steep rocky uplands , flood plains, and wetlands. for a large portion of their feed supply. These grasslands were stocked with horses, dairy, and beef cattle, often with disregard to the environmental I applaud the organizers of this conference for deal­ consequences to the grassland resource. In contrast to ing with a watershed approach to land management the western areas of the state where grass is often issues. Today we are bombarded with buzz words such viewed as a crop which must be sustained for the contin­ as ecosystem based assistance, riparian area manage­ ued success of the ranching operation, farmers in the ment, and managing for maximum natural genetic varia­ east often view the remaining grasslands as wasteland or tion (biodiversity}. All of these programs and causes are

9 fine and good in their own right, but most fail to address streams. Providing alternative water sources and devel­ the root of the problem which is the generally poor man­ oping hardened watering points will go a long way agement of much of the agricultural land in the United toward reducing these direct deposits by livestock. The States. We need to view environmental concerns such as trick to grazing management is to accomplish the above degraded riparian areas not as a problem but as a symp­ items while maintaining livestock production. tom of a degraded watershed or poor land management. Riparian areas are just one small part (albeit an impor­ The benefits from grazing management can have tant part) of a dynamic ecosystem. They are not a sepa­ major positive impacts on hydrologic functions within a rate ecosystem but are inextricably tied to the surround­ watershed. Rainfall simulations conducted on three soils ing uplands. If we think we can improve our river sys­ with differing levels of grazing management within the tems solely by treat- Bad River watershed ing the riparian in central South areas while ignoring Proper grazing by domestic livestock is not the environ­ Dakota have shown the surrounding mental calamity that it is often portrayed. that infiltration rate uplands we are can increase from doomed to failure. 63 to 94%. The same studies showed a 62 to 95% reduction in soil ero- If you look at the �st examples of riparian area sion and a 40 to 68% increase in grass production. management in South Dakota, you will also see good Grazing level, amount of litter, or mulch and height of upland management or what I call "riparian manage­ vegetation had the greatest effect on the above variables. ment by default." In other words, through proper man­ This study has demonstrated the often enormous impacts agement of all lands including range, pasture, crop, for­ that grazing management can have on hydrologic func­ est, and haylands, we have managed to produce healthy tions. On a watershed scale, poor grazing management riparian areas by default. Practices such as various can mean tens of thousands of acre feet of additional stream and headcut engineering practices, corridor fenc­ runoff and thousands of tons of increased sediment pro­ ing of streams, or planting trees and shrubs along stream duction, while good grazing management provides hun­ banks have no effect on the uplands of the watershed dreds of more pounds of grass production for livestock where the stream problems originate. These techniques forage. The effects that grazing management has on often show rapid stream channel improvement, but they flood control, stream function, water quality, and the are also not self sustaining. The only long-term solution economy are tremendous. to watershed problems on grazing lands is to attempt to mimic natural systems through the development of graz­ Great strides have been made at improving produc­ ing management systems. er attitudes toward voluntary grazing management pro­ grams in eastern South Dakota. Workshops on grazing These grazing management systems must include management often attract 50 to 100 producers. Many rotational grazing strategies if we expect to maintain our innovative management ideas have surfaced from vari­ current high levels of production. These systems must be ous government-sponsored programs and numerous pro­ designed with all resource concerns in mind. Grazing lev­ ducers. Many complex problems with no easy answers els must be such as to insure adequate plant litter and exist. Continued education on methods of improving ample residue to build plant carbohydrate reserves and grazing lands which areeconomically justifiable as well thus improve plant vigor. Season of use should be con­ as manageable will be the key to improving producer trolled to alleviate overgrazing of critically important awareness in the future. We must also continually make species such as woody vegetation along stream channels, the public aware of the great strides that are being made insure adequate rest periods between grazing as well, in improving management of these grazing lands, as and avoid soil compaction. As much as possible, livestock public perception willundoubtedly dictate future policy must be kept from urinating and defecating directly into decisions.

10 AGRONOMIC MANAGEMENT IN WATERSHEDS

Keith L. Harner

Division of Conservation South Dakota Department of Agriculture Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

My interest in the James, Vermillion, and Big I can envision that we will in the future determine Sioux rivers is tied directly to the fact that conservation watershed "size," or boundaries, on the basis of com­ districts cover the entire area. The State Conservation mon problems. We will have conservation districts, Commission and the Division of Conservationwere counties, and other governmental units and non-gov­ _ responsible forthe process of forming those districts ernmental entitiesjoi ning forces to work on the prob­ upon local action. We continue to have certain over­ lems. This may be by cooperative agreements or, in sight of these districts, and provide some technical and some cases, might actually involve legal combination of financial assistance as well. smaller into larger units.

Conservation districtswere organized under state Conservation districts were organized to address law primarily to provide a delivery system for resource soil erosion and its attendant causes and effects. programs provided by other units of government and Sediment caused by erosion is still, by volume, the private organizations. The main users of this delivery largest pollutant of water bodies and streams, and it system have been agencies of the U.S. Department of carries other pollutants with it. Agriculture on the federal level (primarily the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS) and the depart­ A review of the 1992 National Resource Inventory ments of Game, Fish and Parks and Environment and (NRI) shows that about 69% of the land in the area we NaturalResources on the state level. are discussing is used for cropland. The NRI shows part of this land with a high "erodibility index" at 8 to 15, as In recent years, the horizons of conservation dis­ determined by the NRCS. It is important to keep in tricts have broadened considerably. Cooperation with mind that, even where soil erosion is adequately con­ entities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, trolled to protect soil productivity, there may still be Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, serious problems forwater quality, at least in some S.D. Depamnent of Environmentand Natural localities. Resources, and many others at federal, state, and local levels has grown considerably. There are a number of conservationpractices which can be used in agronomic management. These When conservation districts were first authorized include (1) structural practices, such as terraces, sod in the late 30s, it was thought they would be organized waterways, strip cropping, shelterbelts, etc., and (2) alongnatural boundaries, essentially on watersheds. It management practices, such as crop rotations and con­ was politically and administratively more convenient to servation tillage, including no-till. Crop rotations can organize them along countyboundaries, which is essen­ be used to support reduced tillage and attendant pest tially the pattern we have today. The new emphasis on control withsmaller amounts of chemical pesticides. holistic, or ecosystem, management encourages us to Conservation districts are uniquely adapted to working revisitthe original idea of watershed management. with land operators on these management approaches.

11 We have been working on these practices for affect the tilth and fertilityof the soil and hence crop more than SO years, with mixed success. We have made yields," and, "Although nitrogen losses can be made up better progress with conservation tillage in the last few by commercial products, the effectof lower organic years, partly because of economics and partly because matter levels will further aggravate an already serious of farmprogram requirements. moisture conservation problem."

There is one I have been agronomic manage- told by some farm­ ment element Th e new emphasis on holistic, or ecosystem, manage- ers that they are which, in my opin- ment encourages us to revisit the original idea of seeing increases in ion� has received wa tershed management. organic matter only a small amount under no-till crop­ of the attention it ping systems. Long- deserves. It is main- term research is tenance of soil organic matter content. This concern needed to verify the conditions under which this can be was expressed in the USDA's 1957 Yearbook of nue and to determine how organic matter can be Agriculture, Soil. It was also discussed in the "Soils of increased all across the state. South Dakota," Bulletin 656, SDSU and SCS (1978). Soil scientists have d�signated ''T'' for each soil. The "Soils of South Dakota" stated that with 70 to This tolerable level of erosion is calculated to protect 90 years of cropping, South Dakota had lost from 25% the basic productivityof the soil, while recognizing that to 35% of the organic matter and nitrogen that was it is impossible to eliminate all soil erosion. The protec­ originally present in the soils. We need to know how far tion of water quality may necessitate goals of less than the deterioration has continued in the 17 years since ''T'' erosion in some circumstances. Agronomicman­ publication of the bulletin. Two quotes from the "Soils agement will probably be a major part of reaching any of South Dakota" are: " ... the losses are great enough to goals for reducing soil erosion.

Riparian areas a valuable asset

Riparian areas occur along watercourses or rest periods. proper stocking rates, alternative water bodies. water sources away from the riparian area, and Theyaredistinctlydifferent frorn thesurround- managingthe riparian area as a separate unit. ing lands becauseof unique soiland vegetation Cropland practices include conservation till­ characteristics that are strongly influenced by age.croprotationand installingfilter/bufferstrips free or unbound water in the soil. along cropland adjacent to riparianareas to im- Ri parianareasarethe transitionzonesbetween prove streambank stability and filter ou t sedi- stream,lak e or wetland and the upland areas. ment, fertilizers, and chemicals. Ri parianareas constitute onlya fraction ofthe The two year project will develop demonstra- total land area but are more lion sites throughout eleven productive in both plant and conservation districts in east- animal species diversity and em SouthDak ota. biomass perunit area . D'IS t nc• t D'1ggmgs • Moody CountyConscrvation Ahealthy and well managed District is the lead sponsoring riparian areawill maintainand district. stabilize streambanks. It will reduce sediment Funding isbeing provided by the Environmen- load from degrading banks, grazing land and talProtection thr Agency ough the SouthDakota adjacent cropland into streams, lakesand wet- Department of Environment and Natural Re­ lands. sources CDENRJ; the SouthDakota Department Riparianareas act as a spongeto storeand hold olAgriculture; the Soil Co nservation Service:local wateralongstreams, lakesandwetlands which is in-kind matching funds as well as other inter­ an extremelyim portantfunction flood in control. ested agenciesand groups. The East River Riparian Area Improvement Sandy Wyman, located at the Brookings Soil Demonstration Project (ERRAIDPJ in eastern Conservation Service Arn office, has been ap­ South Dakota will assist participatingland own- pointed the East River RiparianArea Coordina- ersin developing resource plans. tor. Riparianimprovement practices will be devel- If you are interested in developing your ripar- oped on grazing land an cropland and act as ian areas contact Karen Cameron-Howell, Dis­ demonstration sites for the surroundingpubl ic. trictConservationistat theSoilConservation Ser­ Reprinted from Plans will bedeveloped with participating land · vice or BrookingsConservation Distric t. ownersto install riparianimprovement practices Brookings Register, on grazing land and cropland. District Diggings i s wrillrn by Kue n Brookings. S.D. Grazing land practices include implementing Cameron-Howell of the Brookings Conserva­ planned grazing systems to allow grazed area tion District.

12 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Craig L. Milewski

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007

For people living in rural landscapes, the eco­ geology and climate of a defined landscape area. nomic well-being and quality of life could be serviced Sttuctural attributes are the physical features, biologi­ by healthy, functioningwater sheds. The potential ben­ cal communities, and energy and material resources. efits of healthy watersheds to individuals and commu­ Functional attributes are the physical, chemical, and nities include sustained or increased agricultural pro­ biological processes that govern the flowof energy ductivity, improved water quality, reduced runoff and and material resources through a landscape area. erosion, lessening of downstreamflood peaks, Ecosystem management is long-term because stnictur­ improved fish and wildlife habitat, and a more aes­ al and functional attributes are naturally organized thetically attractive landscape. within several scales of time and space. This natural organization is coupled with an understanding of the Impediments to realizing the social and econom­ social, economic, cultural, and political infrasttuctures ic benefits of healthy watershed function include a to identifybarriers, and desired future conditions. lack of coalescence of currently available knowledge, Four ecosystem management principles (GAO/RCED- expertise, and experience among resource managers 941 11, August 1994) that provide practical steps and and users. However, watershed-related problems such actions forimplemen ting ecosystem management are as non-point source pollution, soil runoffand erosion, outlined in Table l. and floodinghave caused some resource agencies to move toward whole-systems management, rather than In an ecosystem, the many origins and fates of management of a single component. energy and material resources over time formthe basis forsttuc tural and functional complexities that Collectively, these components are part of an link the terrestrial with the aquatic. Perhaps concepts ecosystem, which can be defined as a system formed related to river sttucture and function can guide the by the interactionof a community of organisms use of watersheds as the basic ecosy!!temunit. (includinghumans) with their environments. Inherently, then, ecosystem management must use For example, rivers move sediment and water knowledge frommany disciplines and background from a collection of small areas in the upper part of experiences to forma basis for identifying problems the watershed to a large area lower in the watershed. and managing defined landscape areas. Accordingly, systemic controls (e.g., the self-adjusting, self-regulating mechanisms of the river) change as the But what is ecosystem management? Ecosystem amount of water and sediment increase. These sys­ management can be defined as the careful and skilled temic controls may affect the ability of local controls use of ecological, social, and managerial principles in (e.g., bank vegetation) to moderate the flow of sedi­ managing ecosystems to produce, restore, or sustain ment and water. ecosystem integrityand desired conditions over the long term. Ecosystem management considers the rela­ An ecosystem approach would integrate this con­ tions of sttuctural and functional attributes to the cept into watershed or landscape analyses and place

13 Table 1. Steps for implementing ecosystem site-specific conditions and land use options within management (adapted from GAO/RCED-94- this larger context. Because the ability to assess and 111, August 1994). relate site-specific conditions to systemic and local controls would improve, the source of problems could be separated from the symptoms, management activi­ 1. Delineate Ecosystems Establish consistent boundaries formanagement. ties could become more cost-effective and less coun­ Establish boundaries at several geographic scales. terproductive, and long-term benefits in human ser­ vices could be realized by way of healthy ecosystem 2. Understand Ecosystem Ecology function. Identifystructures components, processes, and linkages among ecosystems. Identify current ecological conditions and trends. Identifyminimum ecological conditions necessary to maintain/restore ecosystems. Identify effects of human activities on ecological Selected References conditions. Brinson, �.M. 1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13:65-74. 3. Make Management Choices Identifydesi red future ecological conditions. LeMaster, D.C., and G.R. Parker, editors. 1991. Ecosystem Identify activities to meet these conditions. Management in a Dynamic Society, proceedings of a con­ Identifydistribution of activities among land units ference in West Lafayette, Ind. Depanment of Forestry over time. and Natural Resources, Purdue University.

Ryan, M.R. 1990. A dynamic approach to the conservation of 4. Adapt Management to New Information the prairie ecosystem in the midwest. Pp 93-106 in (J.M. Continue research, monitoring, and assessing eco­ Sweeney, ed) Management of Dynamic Ecosystems, pro­ logical conditions. ceedings of a symposium at Slst Midwest Fish and Modifymanagement choices (step 3) on the basis Wildlife Conference, Springfield, Ill. of new information (step 2). Revise ecosystems' boundaries as warranted United States General Accounting Office. 1994. Ecosystem (step 1). management: additional actions needed to adequately test a promising approach. GAO/RCED-94-111.

"An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means protecting or restoring the function. structure, and species composition of U.S. Fish and Wildlife an ecosystem while providing for its sustainable Service definition of ecosystem approach socioeconomic use.#

14 LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING FOR THE WHITEWATER WATERSHED, MINNESOTA: A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH

Larry Gates

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2300 Silver. Creek Road NE Rochester, Minnesota 55906

There is widespread and increasing recognition Fiftyper sonnel representing all disciplines and that in order to manage for the integrity of our land all levels from field staffto program managers to divi­ and water resources, long-term comprehensive sion directors were selected to be interviewed. approaches to planning and management are needed (systems approaches) . The results from those interviews were only sur­ prising in their unanimity. In brief they were: 1) our Testimony and documentation supporting reau­ approach to management is fragmented within and thorization of the Clean Water Act endorse a water­ outside of the agency; 2) we treat symptoms, not shed (basin) approach to planning, research, and man­ sources; and 3) there is no comprehensive long-term agement. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and approach to land and water resource management cur­ Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Park Service rently being employed in Minnesota. are adopting watershed management approaches to organize research needs ; meet biodiversity goals; and From this, we developed the following goal and address endangered, threatened, and special concern objectives and presented them to senior managers on species, etc. The Natural Resources Conservation April 1, 1991. Service (NRCS) has recognized the need to broaden its perspective and to recognize other resource values in Goal: Improve management of Minnesota's land its programs and planning processes. and water resources on a watershed basis.

In Minnesota, two recent exercises (EQB Lakes Objectives: Long term - Improve land and water Task Force and Freshwater Foundation Lakes resource management on a watershed Management Forum) set out to look at lake manage­ basis over the next decade. ment. State and federal agencies, local units of gov­ ernment, representatives of groups, and special inter­ Short term - Implement 3-7 prototype ests participated. They concluded that efforts were comprehensive watershed projects over fragmented with little coordination and that a long­ thenext 2-4 years. term, comprehensive approacp to planning and man­ agement was needed. The Governor's Commissionon The goal and objectives were endorsed by senior Reformand Efficiencyf indings and recommendations managers. were similar.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Criteria for project solicitation were developed (MNDNR) Comprehensive Watershed Management and distributed to the regions. Twenty projects were Initiative (CWMI) evolved from an examination of the received, and in September 1991, eight projects (this Department's river and stream management programs exceeded the 3-7 asked for) were selected to represent beginning in spring 1990. the prototypes.

15 The planning approach to comprehensive water- rations of the ecosystem (sustainable) in which we are shed management is simple and straightforward: working. Most importantly, this product has strong Define existing conditions local ownership, the approach to planning is adaptive Describe where we want to go and flexible, and there is commitment by participating Investigate how to get there agencies to agree to its long-term implementation. Implement the plan Monitor/Evaluate The plan is dynamic, allowing forchanges to Review plan goals and objectives periodically accommodate evolving socioeconomic conditions and the introduction of management (implementation) This process is undertaken with a steering com­ brought about by a better understanding of the sys­ mittee that is representative of the watershed commu­ tems in which we are working (research, monitoring, nity. It typically consists of citizens, organizations, and evaluation). local units of government, and state and federal agen­ cies. This process works to get groups representing An area and watershed where this approach to diverse views and interests to share values and experi­ planning is being conducted is the 205,000-acre ences, discover how much they have in common, and Whitewater Watershed in southeastern Minnesota. The therefore, agree to strive forcommon goals and objec­ Whitewater Watershed Project got its start in 1987. In tives (desi.red future). that year, the USFWS, in cooperation with the Winona and Olmsted Soil and Water Conservation Districts, What distinguishes this from other planning launched a pilot project in the Middle Branch of the approaches is the time spent on the firsttwo stages. Whitewater River watershed. The intent of this project Presentations on geology; pre-European settlement was to determine if there was interest and a willing­ cultures; land use changes; and changes in key physi­ ness by property owners (mostly farm operators) to cal, chemical, and biotic metrics precede any discus­ implement land treatment practices to reduce runoff sion about issues. Following this description of past and erosion. The USFWS' primaryinterest and reasons and existing conditions, we have a discussion about forundertaking this initiative were sedimentation, what the future of this area might be if we continue to habitat loss, and degradation of Weaver Bottoms, Pool manage as we have been. It is only afterthese presen­ 5, Mississippi River, to which the Whitewater Riveris tations that we begin the discussion about where we a tributary. want to go. We ask the audience to contribute to descriptions of desired future conditions forth eir The reception by property owners in the Middle watershed 50 to 100 years into the future. The audi­ Branch watershed was very supportive. This led to the ence is informed and thinking long-term and compre­ establishment of a three-county Whitewater hensively (ecologically) . It works and it sets up the Watershed Joint Powers Board in 1989 for the begin­ next step. If we can agree where we want to go, we ning of a watershedwide assessment. have to investigate how to get there. This efforthas largely been assisted by a Clean The principal components of comprehensive Water Partnership grant from the Minnesota Pollution watershed management are: · Control Agency, a NRCS PL-556 small watershed plan­ it is Comprehensive ning process, and participationfrom numerous agency it requires Citizen Participation partners. and Effective Partnerships and it is Long Term. The organizational srructure of the project con­ sists of the Joint Powers Board, Executive Director, The product of this planning approach is a com­ Citizens Committee, Conservation Coalition, and prehensive watershed management plan developed Technical Committee. The project is currently going against an understanding of the capabilities and limi- through the pains of examining how decisions are

16 made, what the project goals and objectives are, and pants. Do not get stuck in data gathering and analysis. how to betterinvolve citizens. Project coordination is fundamental to the success of the project. A lot of information has been collected for the project watershed. This constitutes the basis from Project coordinators (managers) set up meetings; which to understand the system, quantify objectives, distribute information and schedules; hold peoples' design implementation, and develop monitoring and feet to the fire to meet timelines; do project adminis­ evaluation to determine if objectives are being met. tration; recognize opportunities and constraints; nur­ Information is available upon request. ture groups and individuals; identify resources (finan­ cial, technical, and personal) ; communicate; and coor­ Whathave we learned? Representation of all dinate. They are the "go to" people at the beginning views and interests in the watershed is imperative. It and growing stages of the project and they manage takes time to build relationships, develop your needs, the process to adhere to the planning approach with and build the process, committee, and funding the emphasis on its critical components. They help sources, etc. to satisfy the needs as you go. Do not try maintain _a long-term planning perspective and contin­ to force a cumbersome planning process down peo­ ue to cultivate the understanding that this is not a sta­ ple's throats. Be adaptive and flexible to accommodate tic exercise, but one which results in a new approach differentlevels of understanding, embrace opportuni­ to business. ties, and demonstrate a willingness to work with oth­ ers. Management by goals and objectives is impera­ Finally, remember that this takes time. The divi­ tive. Technical advice and assistance is essential and, dends come from getting everyone working together in our case, has been forthcoming from agency partici- toward common goals and objectives.

:

WATER RESOURCE INTEGR ITY Compe/tition The five principal Predation factors. with some of their important Nutrien� chemical. physical, ,....--.....___ .------> Riparian � and biological com­ r �· Energy Vegetation f sunlight .----'-__..;...'=----''----''-, ponents. that influ­ Source ence and deter­ Habitat Structure mine the integrity Catter Gradient Inputs of surface water (, ... , In stream resources. (From Production ' ubstrate Cover Ohio En vironmental 'j Current · Protection Agency) Canopy

17 In the 43 years or so of this writer's observations of th e river, it has become an expected occurrence that when the heavy rain fa lls in Champaign or Douglas County, the rich black soil from those areas will soon be passing by Coles Countyin th e dark, muddy appearing wa ter.

Leonard Durham, 1993, about the Embarass River, Illinois PROJECTS & PROGRAMS

In the second part of the workshop, personnel Assistance was generally related to conservation pro­ from local, state, and federal levels of government grams, farm managementsy stems, flood and disaster shared information about available data, ongoing stud­ programs, and wetland management. Regulatory ies, existing river resources and values, and current processes or permit and project reviews were dis­ projects and programs. Presenters showed that data cussed forwetland alterations, water allocations, and were available and studies were underway on flood water quality standards. This segment of the work­ control, streamflow, groundwater, aquifers, irrigation, shop showed the array of knowledge from many disci­ water quality, riparian zones, and fish and wildlife. plines, the diversity of programs and projects available Presenters described a host of technical and financial to both resource managers and landowners, and the assistance available to landowners and managers. potential issues related to watershed management.

Eight hundred fifty-three new jobs with $12. 8 million in additional wages if rangeland/p asture­ /and is improved ... with secondary benefits to wildlife and wa ter quality.

Marty Beutler. 1991, South Dakota State University economics professor

19 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE PROGRAMS AND INTEREST IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Leroy Holtsclaw

Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Building, 200 Fourth Street SW Huron, South Dakota 57350

Conservation Technical Assistance in cooperation with a local conservation district, The Natural Resources Conservation Service they adopt a conservation plan forth eir entire unit (NRCS) is the new federal agency in the U.S. and agree to make land use adjustments, apply con­ Department of Agriculture that works hand-in-hand servation_ practices, and establish a desirable crop­ withAmerican people to conserve natural resources ping and use system, all according to an agreed­ on private lands. Our name change from the Soil upon schedule. The USDA, forits part, agrees to pro­ Conservation Service to the Natural Resources vide technical assistance and cost-sharing to further Conservation Service more accurately reflects what the adoption of these conservation plans forthe we do, helping people conserve all natural resources whole farm or ranch. on private lands. It reflects a streamlined agency that provides quality service more efficiently. Our name There are 47 South Dakota counties currently has changed, but some things will not change. NRCS designated for participation: in GPCP. A $35,000 ceil­ will build on 60 years of experience, our scientific ing on costshare payments per contract is in effect. and technical expertise, and our partnerships with The 15 counties along South Dakota's easternborder conservation districts and others. NRCS will build a are not eligible forthe program. unique relationship between federal, state, and local government and farmers and other private land users. Watershed Protection and NRCS will emphasize strengths in natural Flood Prevention Act (PL-566) resource conservation: voluntary programs, technical Applications forassistance may be submitted by assistance, and conservation cost sharing. Technical conservation districts or any local organization with assistance will continue to be delivered through con­ the authority under state law to carry out Public Law servation districts, managed by locally elected offi­ 566 projects. For approved projects, public meetings cials charged by state law to develop local programs are held throughout the planning period to solicit to meet local natural resource and conservation inputs from concerned federal and state agencies needs and priorities. and the public.

NRCS will provide Technical Assistance and The program has had a significant reduction in servicesto land users and units of government funding.A redirection toward a more holistic total through the 69 conservation districts in South resource management approach is continuing with Dakota. emphasis on nonstructural land treatment measures because they are generally less expensive than struc­ tural measures and for theirmultipurpose effects in Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) conservation practices. Strict economic feasibility Under provisions of GPCP, landowners may studies limit projects that are approved for plan­ enter into long-term contracts with USDA whereby, ning.

20 River Basin Surveys and Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Investigations Program Wetlands Reserve Program is authorized by the This is composed of Cooperative River Basin 1990 Farm Bill. It allows individuals to enroll eligible Studies and Flood Plain Management Studies. The acreages into permanent easements. Eligible areas objectives are to work cooperatively with state and include wetlands farmed under natural conditions, local governments to identify water and related land farmed wetlands that are restorable, and wetlands resource problems, evaluate alternative solutions, converted to cropland prior to December 23, 1985. and assist local governments to develop implementa­ Eligible land also includes: 1) a riparian area along a tion programs. Currently the only study in South stream or other waterway that links or, after restoring Dakota is in the Upper Bad River drainage area. the riparian area, will link wetlands which are protect­ ed by an easement or other agreement that achieves Priority is given to identifying cost-effective the same objectives as an easement; 2) land adjacent solutions to agriculture and rural community flood­ to the restored wetland, which would contribute sig­ ing, agricultural pollutants contributing to water nificantlyto functions and values of the restored wet­ quality problems, wetland restoration, and agricultur­ lands, bu� not more than thatwhich is necessaryto al water management in areas where sponsors are protect these functions and values of wetlands highly committed through their participation and restored. These areas are limited to buffer areas, inclu­ implementation using other than federal program sions, and noncropped natural wetlands. funds.

Water Bank Program (WBP) Resource Conservation and In the 40 South Dakota designated counties, Development Program (RC&D) agreements are for 10 years with eligible landowners The objectives of the RC&D program are to to help preserve important nesting, breeding, and improve the capability of state and local units of gov­ feeding areas of migratorywaterfowl. The partici­

ernment and other local citizens to plan, develop, pants agree, in return for annual payments, not to and carry out programs fer resource conservation drain, bum, fill, or otherwise destroy the wetland and development. character of such areas .and not use them forag ricul­ tural purposes. RC&D area council s are made up of citizens

from the local area who serve on a voluntary basis, The NRCS provides technical assistance to protect, identify area problems, set priorities, and develop improve, or restore eligible wetlands, identifying eligi­ and seek technical and financial assistance to imple­ ble wetlands, helping wetland owners develop the con­ ment plans. The councils coordinate their activities servation plan required forparticipation, and helping with state, area-wide, and local agencies. participants apply contracted conservation treatment.

The name has changed but the

message hasn ' t. Old clip art from the former SCS shows the holistic approach the NRCS continues to advocate.

21 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA COLLECTION AND INTERPRETIVE STUDIES IN THE JAMES, VERMILLION, AND BIG Sioux RIVER BASINS IN SOUTH DAKOTA

Rick 0. Benson

United States Geological Survey Rm. 408 Federal Building, 200 4th Street SW Huron, South Dakota 5 7350

The USGS provides the hydrologic information gram, which was a program to collect water-level data thatis needed to manage the nation's water resources. from bedrock aquifers throughout the state during The 1994 districtprogram in South Dakota was almost 1959-89. A total 62 wells were monitored in the 3 $4 million; 51% was from the USGS federal and feder­ Basins-43 in the James, 8 in the Vermillion, and 11 al-state cooperative programs, 17% was from other in the Big Sioux. Water levels for four additional wells federal agencies, and 32% was from state and local in the 3 Basins are being collected and published agencies. In 1994, the South Dakota District cooperat­ annually in the USGS Data Report forSouth Dakota. ed with 5 federal, 6 state, and 19 local agencies. The In addition, South Dakota Department of Environment District program generally can be divided into two and Natural Resources (DENR) water-level data are parts-data collection and interpretive studies. archived on NWIS: Data for 832 DENR wells within the 3 Basins are stored on NWIS. Systematic collection of surface-water data in the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux basins (the 3 Basins) The collection of water-quality data by USGS in dates back to the 1920s, when the gages at Huron and the 3-Basin area began in the early 1950s, when the near Scotland on the James River and at Akron on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provided funding to col­ Big Sioux River were established. Discharge, stage, or lect baseline water-quality data in the James Basin to flood-crest information either has been or currently is assess potential impacts of the proposed Garrison being collected at 12 mainstem sites in the James Diversion Unit (GDU). Due to GDU-related monitoring Basin, at 7 mainstem sites (including the East Fork, activities, more water-quality data generally are avail­ West Fork, and the Little Vermillion River) in the able forthe James Basin than forthe Vermillion or Big Vermillion Basin, and at 12 mainstem sites in the Big Sioux Basins (Table 1). Sioux Basin. On tributaries or lakes within the 3 Basins, discharge or stage or flood-crest information The USGS NASQAN program also has resulted in has been or currently is being collected at 47 sites in a substantial amount of water-quality data in the theJames Basin, 7 sites in the Vermillion Basin, and James and Big Sioux basins. General types of water­ 29 sites in the Big Sioux Basin. The respective data are quality data that have been collected by USGS in the 3 stored as daily mean discharge, daily mean stage, or Basins include analytical results fordiscrete water . instantaneous peak discharge on the NationalWater samples collected using representative width- and Information System (NWIS) on the South Dakota depth-integrating techniques; continuous records of District PRIME computer in Huron and/or WATSTORE fieldwater-quality parameters such as dissolved oxy­ on the AMDAHL computer in Reston, Va. The data gen, pH, water temperature, and specific conductance also are published annually in the USGS Data Report collected using water-quality monitors and electronic for South Dakota. logging devices; and daily records of water tempera­ ture, specific conductance, and/or suspended-sediment The systematic collection of groundwater data in concentration and load determined from observer the 3 Basins has been limited mostly to the SD-5 pro- records or using rating techniques. Water-qualitydata

22 collected by USGS are stored in NWIS and published Table 1. Number of sites andsamples, by cat­ annually in the Data Repon for South Dakota. egory, for USGS surface-water-quality data­ collection activities in the James, Vermillion, County studies, completed in cooperation with and Big Sioux river basins. the South Dakota Geological Survey (SDGS), represent the most comprehensive areal water-resource studies James Vennillion Big that USGS has accomplished within the 3 Basins. The Sioux multiyear studies involved an extensive test drilling programby SDGS to determine the thickness and Total sampling sites 36 12 73 areal extent of aquifers. Surface-water resources and water quality of both groundwater and surface water Active sampling sites (1995) 1 0 1 also were evaluated. The studies usually resulted in four reports-a Water-Resources Repon written and Inactive sites with published by USGS, a Lay-Reader Repon written by continuous or daily USGS and published by SDGS, and Geology and Sand water-quality data 8 0 2 & Gravel Repons written and published by SDGS. Studies are essentially complete for all counties within Inactive sites with daily suspended-sediment data 6 0 2 the 3 Basins, except for McCook County which is not scheduled. Major ion analyses stored in USGS NWIS 1536 187 770 The USGS has completed drainage-area studies in all 3 Basins. Drainage areas for all named tribu­ Nutrient analyses stored taries and for all unnamed tributaries with drainage in USGS NWIS 954 141 834 areas exceeding 5 square miles were delineated on Trace-element analyses 7.5-minute quadrangle maps and digitized to deter­ stored in USGS NWIS 758 58 432 mine drainage area. The studies were published as map reports. Suspended-sediment analyses stored Other significant studies that have been complet­ in USGS NWIS 758 58 432 ed by USGS include seven groundwater models in the Pesticide analyses stored Big Sioux Basin thatwere accomplished as a pan of in USGS NWIS 170 4 60 the Big Sioux Hydrology Study or at the request of the Cityof Sioux Falls and four groundwater models in theJames Basin, three of which were done in coopera­ Dakota State Universitywith the Huron Project of the tion with DENR to evaluate the effectsof increased High Plains Demonstration Program, where treated irrigation demand on groundwater resources. Four James River water is being injected into the Warren general hydrology studieshave been completed, two Aquifer to study the potential for artificial recharge ·Of in the James Basin and two in the Big Sioux Basin. glacial aquifers. Precipitation (acid rain) data are Two studieshave been completed in the James Basin being collected at a site near Huron as pan of the to develop naturalized (unregulated) streamflow data National Atmospheric Deposition Program. In the Big forthe Bureau of Reclamation. Three water-quality Sioux Basin, two lake sediment studies (Lake Pelican reports, three groundwater-level reports, and three and Lake Kampeska) are being done using continuous sediment reports also have been completed in the seismic reflection to determine sediment thickness and James and Big Sioux basins. using global positioning to determine horizontal posi­ tion. Two groundwater model studies and an urban Several studies currently are ongoing in the 3 runoff study (for NPDES permitting) are being accom­ Basins. In theJames Basin, USGS is assisting South plished in cooperation with the City of Sioux Falls.

23 Groundwater model studies in Codington and Grant sites on gaged streams in the state is nearing comple­ counties and in Lincoln and Union counties are near­ tion. Another study to update equations used to esti­ ing completion. mate flood-flow frequencies at ungaged sites in the state is in progress. Currently, Thirteen sites in USGS is working on Systematic collection of surface-water da ta in the the 3 Basins have three statewide and been sampled as Ja mes, Ve rmillion, and Big Sioux basins ... da tes back one multi-state part of the USGS to the 1920s, wh en the gages at Huron and near activity that encom­ Mid-Continent pass the 3 Basins. Scotland on the James River and at Akron on the Big Pesticide Data for as many as Sioux River were established. Reconnaissance 13 categories of Studythat is near­ water use are com- ing completion. piled by county and by basin; every 5 years, USGS places special emphasis The Water Resources Division of the USGS has on the program to collect and compile data nation­ collected and continues to collect a vast amount of wide. A statewide bridge-scour study is being accom­ surface-water, groundwater, and water-qualitydata in plished in cooperation with the South Dakota the 3 Basins. Numerous interpretive studies also have Department of Transportation (DOT) to evaluate scour been completed, and several are ongoing. Inquiries potential at 31 sites-12 of the sites are in the 3 concerning the availabilicy of information in the 3 Basins. Also in cooperation with DOT, two flood-flow Basins, as well as anywhere in South Dakota, can be frequency studies are being done. A study to update directed to the Subdistrict Office in Huron (353-7176) flood-flow frequency estimates through 1993 forall or the District Office in Rapid City (394-1780).

24 WATER DISTRICTS: PROJECTS, PROBLEMS, AND POLITICS

James Adamson

Vermillion Basin Wa ter Development District P. O. Box 408 Centerville, South Dakota 5 70 14

I have lived along the Vermillion River all of my Lake Vermillion is a South Dakota Game, Fish & life. I have watched the flooding formost of my 62 Parks dam located in the southern portion of McCook years. The floods in the 1940s were nothing compared County. It does not provide flood control, and at times to current flood events. of severe flooding it contributesto the flood peaks.

Since 1940 an enormous change has taken place The TLC Water Project District has a flood con­ mostly because of man-made drainage. This drainage trol plan for most ofthe south half of the Vermillion continues despite our effortsto stop it. If you have a Valley. It involves a large dam on the East Fork 5 prairie pothole that is a liability and you drain it, you miles north of Parker. This structure would catch then pass that liability on to someone else. Currently, 34,000 acre feet of water and release most of it slow­ much of this draining is tiling instead of open ditching. ly. There are also plans forfour or five tributary dams Some counties refuse to enact drainage ordinances. that would work the same way. This would be fol­ lowed by 50 or 60 stock dams along the tributaries. The Vermillion Basin is 2, 185 square miles and is We feelth ese projects would also enhance wildlife. 120 miles long. It includes all or part of 10 counties. The Vermillion Basin Water Development District cur­ A Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Study rently consists of all of Turner and Clay counties. The showed less than a 1: 1 cost: benefit ratio. This hurt Turner, Lincoln, Clay (TLC) Water Project District funding opportunities. However, the Corps did not includes the floodable land between Davis and include wildlife and recreation benefits as well as ero­ Vermillion. The two districts currently share office sion control benefits. Other things not taken into space in Centerville, S.D. The Vermillion Basin account include economic benefits to surrounding WatershedManagement Advisory Board (consisting of towns, tax base, and cost shares from federal, state, countycommissioner s from all counties involved) is and local governments to repair damage. We feel trying toform a regional organization. these added items would enable a favorable cost/ben­ efit ratio. Lake Thompson is located in the upper end of the East Fork of the Vermillion River. In the last 10 The federal governmentbuyout program is not years, the lake has experienced very high water. It going to work at this timein the VermillionValley. appears the solution may be to have some controlled The damage to property, roads, and wildlife from drainage of the lake or wait fornature to correct the flood to flood is serious. This is some of the best land problem. in the state, but we need relief fromfloods.

25 GAME, FISH AND PARKS STREAMS PROGRAM

Ron Koth

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 3305 We st South Street Rapid City, South Dakota 5 7702

The Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) Stream habitat restoration and enhancement has fisheries program is organized into four subprograms. taken place in the Black Hills since 1973. Nearly 30 These are 1) streams, 2) large lakes and reservoirs, 3) miles of stream reaches have been worked on during small lakes and ponds, and 4) Missouri River reser­ the. last 22 years at a cost of approximately $1.9 mil­ voirs. The entire fisheries program is funded through a lion. Projects have been completed with a variety of user-pay mechanism. State license fe es are matched cooperators and have been justified by the high value with a 10% manufacturers excise tax collected at the placed on trout fishing opportunitiesand the unique­ federal level and redistributed to the states by the Fish ness of coldwater streamhabitat in a prairie state. and Wildlife Service through the Sport Fish Most effortshave been directed towards recovery of Restoration Program. The match ratio for this program stream meanders, bank erosion control, and fish habi­ is 25% state money matched with 75% federal monies. tat enhancement. Stream habitat work in the Black Hills has, in part, led to less dependence on stocking In 1994 South Dakota fisheries management cost of trout, as natural reproduction has supplied the the user $3.8 million (state and federal monies) and majority of angler needs. generated 3,000,000 angling days of recreation and $358 million of economic activitywhen direct angler The future of stream management in GFP is expenditures are magnified by the 2.5 multiplier used being directed through the strategic planning process by the South Dakota Department of Tourism. known as SAM, the StrategicApproach to Manage­ ment, the results of the Statewide Angler Use and Streams in South Dakota contribute 402,000 Preference Survey completed in 1993, and the ongo­ anglingdays of recreation to total angling recreation. ing Black Hills Angler Use and Preference Survey Approximately 10,000 miles of stream are available (results to be available January 1996). All of these forangler use. According to the Department of Natural efforts rely heavily on public input combined with GFP Resources (DENR), 48% of this stream mileage meets technical expertise to determine directions forstream water quality criteria. In addition to angler use, management in the future. streamssupport the bulk of the approximately 1,900 appropriative surface water ri�hts in South Dakota. The Streams Program strategic goal is as follows: Nearly400 National Pollutant Discharge permits also "To conserve and enhance thenatural resources of are dependent on streams. In addition to these readily streams in South Dakota and to increase public knowl­ measurable uses, there are others such as cattle water­ edge of them." Nine strategic objectives are identified: ing, sub-grade irrigation, riparian zone cover and for­ 1) In cooperation with DENR, upgrade thebenefi­ age, and esthetics attributed to streams of thestat e. cial use designation on 2% of statewide stream mileage by 2000 A.D., while maintaining benefi­ Stream management by GFP has historically cial uses on all remaining stream reaches. focused on the 700 inventoried miles of coldwater 2) Establish an ini;tream flow reservation on a stream habitat found in the Black Hills. selected stream reach by 2000 A.D.

26 3) Provide an annual minimum of 500,000 angling anglers feltthat continued provision for streamhabitat days of sustainable fishing on South Dakota restoration and improvement is critical, very impor­ streams by 1996. tant, or important. Seventy percent of resident and 4) Propose watershed-based stream management by non-resident anglers feltwater quality was critical. 1996. 5) Conduct stream preservation, enhancement, or Using the stream program strategic objectives restoration and information projects at the collected from rate of at least anglers, GFP feels In 1994 . .. South Dakota fisheries management ... 1 mile of that, by pursuing generated 3, 000, 000 angling days of recreation and stream annu­ more active man- million of economic activity ... ally through $358 agement on 1996. warmwater 6) Develop and streams, several of maintain a the long-term needs centralized identified can be fisheriesand habitat database by 1996. addressed. GFP plans to involve local users and 7) Increase public knowledge and involvement with resource managers in an effort to develop and priori­ streams of South Dakota. tize projects on a regional basis that will address as 8) Develop and initiate a plan fordep artmental many objectives and needs as possible. Warmwater response to fish health problems, fish kills, and streams offer a great deal of fisheries potential, as public health problems in conjunction with other active management has taken place on few reaches. regulatoryagenci es by 1996. Cooperative projects with groups working upslope in 9) Develop a standard policy for the statewide fish­ the watershed as well as collaborative efforts with pri­ eries management manual that outlines how all vate landowners are viewed as potential mechanisms special status species will be managed by 1996. to accomplish GFP objectives and work with groups on locally identified needs. The Statewide AnglerUse and Preference Survey contains 10 summaryrecommen dations, four of which can be applied to streams: 1) Develop a more diversified fishery. 2) Develop and manage a more localized fishery. 3) Develop shore fishing areas. 4) Get more information to the average angler Selected References about potential fishing areas. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 1994. South Dakota angler use and preference survey, SDGFP, Wildlife In addition to these summary recommendations, Division. Completion Report 94-14. 74% of resident anglers polled (n= 760) feltthat South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 1994. Systematic prairie stream management is critical, very important, approach to management (fisheries), SDGFP, Wildlife or important. Ninety-six percent of this same group of Division. Special Publication.

Funding from the Sport Fish Restoration Program was used to present this watershed workshop and print this proceedings.

27 BIG SIOUX AQUIFER WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA

Jay Gilbertson

Ea st Dakota Wa ter Development District 307 6th Street Brookings, South Dakota 5 7006

(Sponsored by: Cooperative Extension Service, South amination. Preventing contamination is preferable to, Dakota State University; Natural Resources Conserv­ and much more economical than, cleaning up the ation Service [formerly SCS]; Consolidated Farm environment afterward. ServiceAgency [formerlyASC S]; East Dakota Water Development District, U.S. Department of Agriculture.) Water Quality Demonstration Project Area The Big Sioux Aquifer lies under the fertile soil The Big Sioux Aquifer (BSA) is a shallow ground­ of eastern South Dakota, and the land above it is water system that underlies approximately 1,000 devoted to intensive agriculture. Preventing ground­ square miles of land betweenSi sseton, S.D., and Sioux water contamination from fertilizers, pesticides, and City, Iowa. It follows the Big Sioux River and is inter­ animal waste is a major objective of the Big Sioux connected to theriver and its many tributaries. The Aquifer Water QualityDemonst ration Project. This BSA is the principal source of water for people who project covers 99,480 acres on 400 farms in live in the 13 border counties of eastern South Dakota. Brookings, Moody, and Minnehaha counties. Nearly The importance of this aquifer is emphasized by the 85% is cropland, with over 10,000 acres under irriga­ following facts: tion. • more than 200,000 residents in the state depend on the Big Sioux Aquifer fordrinking water; The BSA project is one of 16 demonstration pro­

• 90% of the municipalities in the Big Sioux Basin jects in the United States developed as a part of a 5- · use Big Sioux Aquifer water. This includes Sioux year comprehensive program fundedby USDA. Falls, Brookings, Watertown, and 15 other South Dakota towns; The purpose of the BSA Demonstration Project is • five rural community water systems servingmore to protect groundwater quality in shallow aquifers by than 6,000 individual farmsteads draw water identifying farm management practices which are from the Big Sioux Aquifer; environmentally sound and economically feasible. The • 16,000 wells tap into the Big Sioux Aquifer; goal is to promote voluntary adoption of innovative • nearly40,000 acres of cropland are irrigated production practices, management systems, and land from the BigSioux Aquifer; treatment to reduce or eliminate contamination of the • more than 53 million gallons of water are aquifer by agricultural operations. pumped from the Big Sioux Aquifer every day.

Although the natural water quality of the Big Environmentally Sound Sioux Aquifer is very good, theaquifer is vulnerable to Management Practices contamination. Because theaquifer is close to the sur­ • Integrated Crop Management (ICM) programs will face and is connected directly to surface water, rapid increase utilization efficiency of fertilizer and pesti­ recharge makes the aquifer highly susceptible to cont- cides and reduce leaching to the aquifer.

28 • Irrigation water management practices will improve • FARM*A*SYST water use efficiency and decrease the movement of • Wellhead protection nutrients

• Reduced tillage, terracing, grass waterways, filter strips, and otherconserv ation measures will reduce Conclusion soil erosion and losses of fertilizers and pesticides All agricultural producers and land owners in the to water. project area can participate in the BSA Demonstration Project by applying at the offices of the Natural • Abandoned well plugging, approved storage of agri­ Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or Consol­ cultural chemicals, animal waste management sys­ idated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) in Brookings, tems, and other management practices will elimi­ Moody, or Minnehaha counties. nate sources of aquiferpollut ion. Participating producers will receive help assess­ • Conversion of land use to less intensive agricultural ing. their total farming operation to determine which practices in critical areas will reduce pollution management practices will benefit them most. potential to the aquifer.

Assistance ... Available Practices and Management Systems Cooperative Extension Service-information and pro­ NRCS, CFSA, and Extension Service staffwill grams on total farm management; technical assistance help producers determine the Best Management for irrigation water management; and FARM •A•SYST, Practices (BMPs) that provide the most protection for a diagnostic tool to determine pollution risks on your theaquifer: farmstead. • Integrated crop management • Fertilizermanagement Natural Resources Conservation Service - technical • Pesticide management assistance to adopt improved conservation practices • Irrigationwater management needed to protect water quality. • Animalwaste management • Conservation tillage Consolidated Farm Service Agency - cost-share fund­ • Plugging abandoned wells ing for implementing new practices and management • Filter strips approaches. 8

COOMJmptiv� t t Polubon U�:ri. B� SiouxRtwt Source Water movement � in the Big Sioux Basin. (From East BigSioua Aqu�or Outwuh Mlteriol Dakota Conservancy Sut;District)

29 PERMIT AND PROJ ECT REVIEW

Scott Larson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

It is noteworthy that eight of the 10 largest cities specific language or relevant authorities that are used in South Dakota occur in the Big Sioux, James, and by the Fish and Wildlife Service to review projects Vermillion watersheds. According to 1990 census with a view towards conservation of natural resources. data, approximately 56% of South Dakota's population In �ost cases, the Fish and Wildlife Servicecomments resides in the three watersheds which comprise about are recommendations only. The permittingor funding 30% of the land base of the state. Many of the cities agency may or may not use them. Fish and Wildlife and larger towns are experiencing growth, while rural Service comments are usually directed at eliminating areas and towns tend to i1 ave declining population lev­ or reducing adverse impacts to fish and wildlife or els. The census data is 5 years old, but the expansion their habitats. of the larger cities appears to be continuing into the 1990s. Fish and Wildlife Coordinadon Act, 1958 The majority of the permits and projects The purpose of this Act is to provide thatwildlif e reviewed by the Ecological Services office in Pierre conservation shall receive equal consideration and be involve expansion of cities and towns, infrastructure coordinated with other features of water resource development, and highway projects or maintenance development programs, including whenever any water thereof. Most of this review work is related to federal body is proposed to be impounded, controlled, or legislation passed in the late 1950s, 1960s, and early modifiedby a federal agency or federally permitted 1970s. Executive orders signed by the President of the action. It requires mandatory consultation withthe United States in 1977 are also relevant to the presen­ Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Game and Fish tation. Department. Specific exemptions include the Small Watershed Project law (PL 566) and impoundments The following statutes and executive orders with with less than 40 surface acres. enactment or amended dates will be discussed: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (SWCA), 1958 Nadonal Environmental Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 (NEPA), 1969 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 1972 The NEPA process is intended to help public offi­ (Clean Water Act) cials make decisions based on understanding of envi­ Endangered Species Act CESA) , 1973 ronmental consequences and take actions that protect, Executive Order 11988, 1977 restore, and enhance the environment. The Act estab­ (Floodplains Management) lished the Council on Environmental Qualityand Executive Order 11990, 1977 applies to all federal agencies. It requiresdetailed (Protection of Wetlands) reports, i.e., decision documents that may include cate­ gorical exclusions, environmental assessments, findings There is only time and space forbrief discussions . of no significant impact, and environmental impact on each of the above topics. However, each provides statements. It involves public and agency review.

30 Clean Water Act, 1972 resources areas. Many agency regulations now have Objective of this Act is to restore and maintain rules regarding activities that can occur in floodplains the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the or wetlands. In some instances, certain activities are nation's waters. Specific sections of thisAct are intend­ forbidden altogether. ed to control discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. Section 404 is a�ministered by theArmy Corps The Fish and Wildlife Service developed a miti­ of Engineers and regulates discharge of dredge and fill gation policy to assist in the review of permits and materials (solids) to waters of the U.S. while the projects. It involves sequential steps that are intended National Pollutant firstto avoid, then Discharge minimize, and Elimination System, The Fish and Wildlife Service developed a mitigation finally compensate section 402, regu­ policy ... sequential steps that are intended firs t to adverse resource lates liquid dis­ avoid, then minimize, and fin ally compensate impacts. This miti­ charges. gation policyor the adverse resource impacts. sequential steps are widely used in Endangered project reviews. Species Act, 1973 This authorizes the listing of species as endan­ The various types of permits and projects that gered and threatened. It prohibits unauthorized tak­ are reviewed in the watershed include section 10/ 404 ing, possession, sale, and transport of listed species. It permits, highway and road projects, federal water pro­ authorizes civil and criminal penalties forvi olating the jects, landfill and solid waste facilities, and numerous Act or regulations. Section 7 of the Act requires feder­ federal grant programs administered by numerous al agencies to ensure that any action authorized, fund­ agencies. ed, or carried out by them does not jeopardize the continued existenceof listed species. This totaled 297 projects reviewed in three watersheds in 1994. Most of these reviews are com­ pleted in the office from information provided by

Executive Orders - 11988, Floodplains applicants and available wetland maps. Othersources Management, and 11990, Protection of of information are limited; therefore, detail on cover Wetlands types such as trees, native prairies, spawning sites, These orders indicated to executive branch agen­ mussel beds, rookeries, and threatened and endan­ cies how business will be done. The orders were made gered species habitat would be valuable additions to to reduce impacts of federal programs on these our information database.

§ 4321. . Congressional declaration of purpose. The purposes of thischapter are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his envi­ ronment; to promote effortswhich willprevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. SHORT TITLE 'National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'

31 THE BIG Sioux RIVER IN IOWA

Jim Christianson

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Box 7722 Spirit lake, Iowa 51360

The Big Sioux River forms thenorthwestern Iowa The fisheries resource of the Big Sioux has border with South Dakota and has become a popular undergone some changes evident through its sampling place to enjoy the outdoors by a variety of recreational history (Table 1). users. The "Survey of Iowa Anglers" (Anonymous 1986) indicated streams and rivers are becoming more Species, such as the walleye, channel catfish, and popular to fish and attracted the most fishing pressure goldeye have been present forsom etime in the River statewide when compared to other bodies of water. system and species like the sauger and flathead catfish were probably present throughout the time of these The Big Sioux in Iowa is fed by a watershed of approximately 1,440 mi2 of which 85 to 95% is in agri­ cultural use. The river valley south of Sioux Falls, S.D., Table 1. A partial species list of fish sampled deepens and becomes narrower than the upper river by Meek (1892), Bailey and Allum (1962), and then again broadens south of Hawarden, Iowa, to Sinning (1968) and Christianson and Jindrich its confluencewith the Missouri River near Sioux City. (1983). The channelin this river reach exhibits the well defined meanders of age with elevation changes of 0.50 ft/mi Christianson Bailey and and riearthe mouth to about 1.5 ft/mi in the northern Specie5 Meek (1892) Allum (1 962) Sinning (1968) (1 983) reaches. This gradual descent creates a fairlysluggish stream, especially in the lower portion of the river. Walleye X x x x Channel Catfish X x x x Gold eye X x x x Tributaries in this section of the Big Sioux have Sauger X x x relatively steep slopes, and runoffis more rapid with Flathead Catfish x x peakflows generally occurring within a few hours Northern Pike x x x after a runoff-producing rainfall. The largest tributary Common Carp x x x of the river is the Rock River which contributes Golden Shiner X x approximately 30% of the river's annual flow. Topeka Shiner X x Total species identified 32 60 25 31 Historians have recorded that early settlers described the Big Sioux as a clean, clear stream. However, like many Iowa streams, it has undergone rapid changes as a result of man's influences. Stream habitat andwater quality have taken the brunt of civi­ surveys but not consistently sampled. The northern lization's blow. But in recent years and through the pike and common carp absent in the 1892 survey indi­ continuing effortsof concerned citizens and govern­ cate these species were probably introduced sometime mental agencies, the problems of point source pollu­ afterthis collection. The golden shiner and Topeka tionhave been greatly reduced. shiner, not collected in 1968 and 1983, may indeed be

32 a reflection of the Big Sioux's changing habitat and Some of the immediate and future needs dealing water quality, especially when considering the Topeka with the Big Sioux River are: shiner is not tolerant of siltation and high turbidity. • continued effort toward nonpoint source and point source pollution

The two most recent fish surveys of the Big Sioux • update and increase information on: River definitely indicate sampling similarities (Table 1. fisheries surveys 2). 2. creel surveys 3. habitat protection 4. habitat improvements Table 2. Fish sampling similarities from • increase access Sinning (1968) and Christianson and Jindrich (1983). The future of the Big Sioux River can be looked at with optimism because of past accomplishments in Species Upper Lower point source pollution and with some pessimism Sand shiner x x Bluntnose minnow x be�ause of the long road ahead when dealing with Fathead minnow x x nonpoint source pollution. Red shiner x x Creek chub x Orange spotted sunfish x Literature Cited Upper=above Klondike Dam on the Big Sioux River. Anonymous. 1986. Fishing in Iowa, a survey of Iowa anglers. Lower= below Klondike Dam on the Big Sioux River. Iowa.

Bailey, P.M., and M.U. Allum. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. Misc Pub 119. Museum of Zoology, University of Sinning (1968) stated that water quality was the Michigan. most important factor affecting fish diversity and dis­ Christianson, J., and L. Jindrich. 1983. Big Sioux Fisheries tribution. In the Big Sioux River fish diversity and dis­ Investigation. File Repon. tribution arecaused by: Meek, S.U. 1892. A report upon the fishesof Iowa, based • river habitat characteristics (physical features) upon observations and collections made during 1889, • pollution/water quality 1890, and 1891. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission. • river barriers (e.g., rock cascade at Sioux Falls Sinning, James A. 1968. Fishes of the Big Sioux River. M.S. and seasonally at lowhead dams) thesis, South Dakota State University. 74 pp.

In the early 1900s, the wa ter was clear enough that people could see the bottom. Residents referred to the river as *The Silvery Sioux. *

Don Pottratz Canton Historial Society

33 RIVER FISHERY ECOLOGY AND STATUS OF FISHES IN SOUTH DAKOTA'S EASTERN RIVERS

Douglas J. Dieterman and Charles R. Berry

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007

More historical data have been collected on the Channel catfish and northern pike are probably James (Jim) River fishery because of proposals related the most important recreational fish in the Jim, where­ to the Garrison Diversion project than on the fisheries as walleye are also importantin the BS. Channel cat­ of theVermillion and Big Sioux (BS) rivers. We have fish populations in theJim are similar to those in new information from fish surveys from 1991 through other midwesternrivers, and the population may be 199S. Fish communities of these rivers have about 40 underexploited. The state record channel catfish (SS to 60 species, depending on river, and have remained pounds) was taken fromthe Jim in 1949. The walleye relatively stable since the l 9S0s. population in the BS is small but individuals grow fast.

Primary gamefish are warmwater species such as Tributaries are important to the ecology of the channel catfish, freshwater drum, and bullheads. main river fishes because tributaries are spawning and Coolwater species (e.g., walleye) are present in lower nursery areas, especially forforage fish. The Jim, numbers than the warmwater fishes, probably because Vermillion, and Big Sioux are important to the of temperature and spawning habitat limitations. Missouri River fishery. Larvae atfrom least 15 species Nongame species include shortnose gar, gizzardshad, driftinto the Missouri fromthe Jim. The Vermillion common carp, goldeye, bigmouth buffalo, suckers, and River fish community is dominated by small fish ( < 3 several kinds of minnows. Twelve fish (e.g., blue suck­ inches) at higher densities (about 8 fish/sq. yard) than er, Topeka shiner, plains topminnow, paddlefish) are nearby rivers. listed as either threatened or of special concern (Table 1). Several species have been stocked (e.g., common About 60 species of midges were found on snags carp, smallmouth bass, crappie), and some are still and rocks in the Jim in densities of more than 30,000 periodically stocked. The average biomass of all fish individuals per square foot. Worms dominated mud species in the Jim ranged from 666 to l, 190 pounds/acre depending on habitat. The figures are typical forsim ilar rivers. Table 1. Classification of fish species in eastern South Dakota rivers. Statewide, South Dakot�'s rivers yearly support about 402,000 angling days for some6S, 600 anglers. James Vennillion Big Classification River River Sioux River The main easternrivers are classed as having substan­ tial fisheryvalue based on the fish populations; how­ Native 46 3S 4S ever, anglers rank riverslast as preferred fishing areas. Introduced 4 2 3 The Jim supports some 31 otherrecreational uses (pri­ Endangered 0 0 0 marily camping, 160,000 hours annually; fishing, Threatened 1 0 1 Special concern 8 4 5 140,000 hours annually), according to a late 1970s study.

34 bottoms at about 11,000 per square foot. Growth rate Table 2. Factors potentially affecting the fish­ of fish which feed on aquatic invertebrates is average eries of eastern South Dakota rivers.

to above average. Importance is v = very; m = moderate; 1 = little. The fish communities are probably affected by biological factors such as competiti�n, predation, and Factor James Ve nnillion BigSioux foodabundance as they are in all rivers. Physical fac­ Hydrology v v v tors that affect the fisheries include flow, water quali­ Habitat v m v ty, and physical habitat. Winterkills have been occa­ Water quality v m m sionally recorded on the Jim and Vermillion rivers. Migration barriers m 1 m Complex habitat (woody debris, rock dams) is more Missouri river m m m important to fish than simple habitat ("reference area" Fish management 1 1 1 in Fig 1). In theVermillion River density of small fish was higher in riffles and woody debris habitats than in pools and runs. However, adult walleye in the Big Sioux did not associate with any particularinstream habitat, thus showing that habitat use depends on species. Some dams block migration, but many rock dams do not because they are submerged during spring floods. Sediment accumulation is high in some Important Uterature

areas, and reduces spawning sites and invertebrate Berry, C. et al. 1994. The James River of the Dakotas. Pages habitat. Droughts reduce fish spavvning and growth. 70-86 in Biological Report 19, National Biological Survey.

Dieterman, D. and C. Berry. 1995. Distribution and relative The influences ofsix factors (Table 2) on the fish­ abundance of fishes in the Big Sioux River, South Dakota. eryneed furtherstudy. Also needed are 1) increased Prog Rept 95-9, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish biomonitoring by using fish, 2) information on the and Parks, Pierre. influenceof low-head dams, and 3) reduction in non­ Schmulbach, J. and P. Braaten. 1994. The Vermillion River: point source pollution (i.e. siltation) through protec­ neither red nor dead. Pages 57-69 in Biological Report tion and rehabilitation of riparian and upland areas. 19, National Biological Survey.

1200 cu g 1000 w 800 � 0 flOO I- llE,EAENCl!9 -z � 400 (/) � 200 c 0 HB SNAG LOW-HEAD TRIB HABITAT

Fig 1. Mean densities of adult primary game fish in various habitats

compared to simple habitats. HB = rocky bottom; SNAG = areas with

woody debris; LOW-HEAD = rock crossing dam; TRIB = tributary con­

fluence; REFERENCES = simple habitat area such as a run or chute. (From SDSU M.S. thesis by R. Wa lsh)

35 An OVERVIEW OF WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE UPPER JAMES RIVER BASIN IN NORTH DAKOTA

Gene Van Eeckhout

North Dakota Game and Fish Department RR T, Box 224 Jamestown, North Dakota 5840 1

One cannot discuss water management in the made, and many of the contentious issues of the past upper James River Basin without starting with the 50- are now being addressed in a manner which should year-old Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) project. As result in broad-based support. originally authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1944, over one million acres of farmland in north-cental and Technical groups are currently looking at munici­ easternNorth Dakota were to be irrigated with water pal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water requirements of diverted from the Missouri River. Municipal and indus­ the more densely populated Red River Valley, statewide trial water was to be supplied to larger cities particular­ MR&I necessities, total water needs on three major ly in the Red River Valley . Over time, this highly con­ Indian Reservations, and a study to address bothflood troversial project has been reduced in scale to a fraction control and water level stabilization of Devils Lake. of what was originally envisioned. Most recently, the Clinton Administration has even questioned some of the The outcome is likely to be a scaled-down and features reauthorized by the GDU Reformulation Act of dramatically altered water project which reflects current 1986. technologies forwater use but also respects the long history of disappointment that North Dakota has experi­ In response to the challenge, on November 12, enced in its relations with the Department of Interior 1993, the Governor and the Congressional delegation and the federal government on the Pick-Sloan Missouri jointly signed a letter to Secretary of Interior Bruce Basin. The executive steering committee is hopeful that Babbitt, asking for his cooperation in re-visioning the the results will be a program which finallymeets North Garrison Diversion project. Commissioner of Dakota's long-termwater needs, preserves and Reclamation Dan Beard responded by calling a meeting enhances natural ecosystems of the prairie pothole of the major stakeholders on December 17, 1993. At region, and saves money over the previously authorized that meeting, he set in motion the North Dakota Water versions. The responsibility for development of the plan Management Collaborative Process designed to deal and execution of the program is shifting to state and with the barriers to completion of a water management local authorities. A continuation of financial support is program that would meet North Dakota's contemporary needed to carry through and further develop the con­ water needs. sensus-building process and to maintain the nearly $400 million worth of facilities thathave been con­ An executive steering committee was formed, con­ structed but, as yet, not put to any signi(icant beneficial sisting of the Governor, the three-member use. Congressional delegation, the three major Indian tribes, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Bureau of There are no Garrison Diversion project fe atures Reclamation. The committee has been reviewing study being constructed at this time. Completion of the options, demonstrated needs, arid alternative solutions bypass canal through Arrowwood National Wildlife while developing a program to meet legitimate water Refuge has been delayed while the Bureau of requests on a consensual basis. Progress continues to be Reclamation (BOR) prepares a new Environmental

36 Impact Statement (EIS). Unlike the piecemeal environ­ benefits associated with CRP acreage. For example, of mental assessments associated with Garrison Diversion the 5 million acres of land within the James River basin in the past, the new EIS will evaluate cumulative in North Dakota, 2. 7 million are cultivated. impacts to the refuge and river ecosystems. Approximately 460,000 acres are enrolled in the CRP, hence 17% of the basin's cultivated land is currently The Oakes Irrigation Test Area (OTA) was a vital being protected by permanent, vegetative cover. It is component of the 1986 GDU compromise. It was autho­ interesting to note that within the 2. 7 million acres of rized and constructed to study the impact of irrigation cropland there are approximately 200,000 acres of wet- return flows on lands. Thirteen per­ aquatic resources, cent (13%) or particularly the There is enormous potential fo r wa ter quality bene­ 26,000 acres are James River above fits associated with CRP acreage. currently buffered Sand Lake National by CRP vegetation. Wildlife Refuge. �oreover, another Congress recently 7,000 acres are clas- directed the BOR to shut down the OTA in 1995. While sified as farmed and/or previously converted. If the lat­ not directly involved in the collaborative process per se, ter two acreages could be targeted in the next farm bill, it is certainly relevant to the futureof Garrison. then 31,000 acres (22%) of the wetlands in the upper Consequently, a task force was formed to prepare an James River Basin could be protected. environmental assessment. It is currently reviewing options forthe best use of the facilities ranging from An issue that merits careful attention of resource abandonment to transfer of ownership to the state; no managers is the proliferation of ''value added" process­ decisions have been made. ing plants for locally grown agricultural products. While they are generally promoted as a panacea for local A substantial amount of water quality research growers and economic development for small commu­ has been conducted at Oakes. Preliminary results are nities, subtle, negative environmental consequences are encouraging, especially with regard to removal of likely being overlooked as developers race to secure nitrates from waste water as it passes through a marsh funding and complete construction on schedule. A buf­ complex during the summer months. There is an exten­ falo meat processing plant at New Rockford, a pasta sive water chemistry database that has not been ana­ plant at Carrington, and a proposal for a large multi­ lyzed and, regrettably, probably won't be if the project million dollar potato processing plant at Jamestown are is zero-funded. examples of "cooperatives" that require vast amounts of water, the effluent fromwhich has to go somewhere. It The North Dakota Department of Health and is instructive to note that the James River is the desig­ Consolidated Laboratories (NDDH&CL) intends to initi­ nated receiving waterfor municipal lagoon discharges ate a James River basinwide water quality monitoring from all three cities. project within the next 5 years. In addition to nutrients, pesticides, and heavy metals, it plans to use Index of On the positive side, abatement of nonpoint pollu­ Biotic Integrity (IBI) methodology to assess fish and tion associated with livestock feeding and wintering macroinvertebrate status. The NDDH&CL recently initi­ operations near drainage systems has been elevated to ated a nonpoint reconnaissance efforton Cottonwood a higher priority. Proactive regulatory agencies are Creek near �oure with hopes of implementing a 319 advising producers that ifa complaint is registered and Project there in a yearor so. enforcement action is initiated, federal sources cannot provide financial assistance for livestock waste systems; NorthDakota officials have been lobbying hard thus, it behooves producers to help themselves while for continuation of the Conservation Reserve Program they can. This type of activity should be encouraged (CRP) . There is enormous potential for water quality and supported by aquatic resource managers.

37 WILDLIFE v ALUES OF THE JAMES, BIG Sioux, AND VERMILLION RIVERS

Ron Schauer

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 517 West 10th Street Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104

Since the beginning of time, rivers have always Besides offering many research opportunities, the been important to wildlife, and the James, Big Sioux, rivers also provide vital winter habitat, travel corridors, and Vermillion are no exceptions. For a better under­ and staging areas for many species of wildlife. A classic standing of their value to wildlife, all one has to do is example is Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge in reviewthe literature and simply spend some time on northeasternSouth Dakota. Sand Lake Refuge is situat­ therivers. The James, Big Sioux, and Vermillion flow ed on the upper end of the James River and was estab­ throughthousands of acres and through half of the 44 lished in 1935 as a nesting and staging area formigrat­ counties that comprise eastern South Dakota. The ing waterfowl. It contains approximately21,5 00 acres, rivers provide an almost perfect mix of habitat diversity of which 11,400 acres are open water and marsh habi­ which most wildlife species need to grow and prosper. tat, the type of habitat critical forwate rfowl and many This unique mix of habitat diversitycontains the three other species of over-water nestingbirds. primary components all wildlife need: food, water, and shelter. Togetherthey create an ideal environment for When the ConservationReserve Program is in full many species of wildlife from whitetail deer to cotton­ swing and most wildlife populations are doing well, it tail rabbits to bald eagles, and the list goes on and on. would be easy to just sit back and do little or nothing. This must not happen! Stretches of these rivers have In additionto being a home for many species of been canalized, more intensive farming practices are wildlife, the rivers offerus as professional wildlife man­ occurring, and urban and suburban developments are agers some unique opportunities to study and learn underway. All of these activities should be monitored more about our valuable wildlife resources. An example and carried out in such a way that the essential habitat of this is the introduction of eastern turkeys along the these rivers provide will be protected and enhanced. James River, beginning in 1993 when 15 hens and 5 For it is this unique habitat that ensures healthy wildlife toms were released along the James River just south­ populations and also provides thousands of hours of eastof Forestburg, S.D. To date, the project has recreation for the people of South Dakota. expanded to five other release sites up and down the river. We are hopeful that this project will give us more Because these rivers serve such a vital role in the insightinto the seasonal movements and home ranges future of wildlife populations and management, it is . of eastern turkeys along the river and offer some limit­ imperative that we as professional wildlife managers do ed hunting a few years down the road. Other studies all we can to properly manage this resource. It is not and projects currently underway involve whitetail deer only our responsibility, but the responsibility of all peo­ movements and habitat use on Sand LakeRefuge and ple in resource management to work together to ensure artificial nestirig structure use by wood ducks on the that rivers like the James, Big Sioux, and Vermillion James, Big Sioux and Vermillion rivers. It is projects will be properly managed for generations to come and like this thatwill give us a better understanding of the continue to provide the quality of life that we all know importance and use of these rivers by wildlife. and have grown to expect.

38 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE "PARTNERS FOR WILDLIFE PROGRAM" IN SOUTH DAKOTA

Carl R. Madsen

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Habitat Office P.O.Box 247 Brookings, South Dakota 5 7006

Since 1988, throughout South Dakota, the U.S. Wetland restorations consist of plugging a man­ Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been working made drainage ditch to restore the original hydrology in voluntary partnerships with private landowners to altered wetland basins. Wetland creations are usu­ interested in restoring and enhancing a variety of ally designed to impound water within a natural draw wildlife habitats. Under the "Partners For Wildlife" and often serve as both waterfowl habitat and live­ program the USFWS providesfinancial and technical stock water. Grass seeding projects covered by the assistance to private landowners through cooperative program usually involve establishing a mix of native agreements. With these cooperative agreements partic­ grasses on previously cultivated land. Rotational graz­ ipating landowners agree to maintain or implement a ing systems are often implemented in conjunction conservation practice but otherwise retain full control with a native grass seeding or wetland creation. over theirproperty. Partners For Wildlife operates Woodduck boxes, mallard structures and goose tubs strictly on a voluntary basis, and most cooperative are all provided to interested landowners, who in agreements are written fora 10-year period. return agree to maintain the nesting structure for 10 years. The most popular project implemented in South Dakota by the program includes wetland restorations, Additional information on any of these projects wetlandcr eations, grass seedings, grazing systems, may be obtained by contacting the U.S. Fish and and provision of waterfowl nesting structures. Wildlife Service at the above address.

These days, the landowner is only a phone call away from people who kn ow about the busi­ ness of managing, restoring, and creating we tlands and who are also concerned about the economic realities of managing a fa rm or ranch.

C. Berry and D. Buechler We tlands in the Northern Great Plains: A Guide to Va lues and Management

39 SOUTH DAKOTA RIPARIAN AREA CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Leonard Pa t Kuck

En viromed 523 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

The environmental considerations and economic rive cover and health, location and aspect in the values of riparianareas are becoming increasingly watershed, hydric factors, and streamtype and gradi­ important to our society. The South Dakota ent. From these and similar riparian area data, a gen­ Department of Environment and Natural Resources er�l description forthis riparian area can be devel­ Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan states in oped. Trained resource people can review these simi­ the introductionthat "nonpoint source pollution has lar sites and develop a condition classificationbased long been recognized as affecting the uses of more on the factors obtained from the field observations. bodies of water than point sources." Riparian areas directly influence nonpoint source pollution since all To gather riparian area data that would docu­ surface water and to a lesser extent groundwater leav­ ment any patterns that exist in the landscape requires ing a watershed must travel in, on, over, and through a labor force. Thus fartwo opportunities have come riparian corridors as it moves downstream. up that allowed a working group to collect data. One was the Upper Bad River Basin Study where the chan­ Today resource managers and environmental nel is being stream typed in six subwatersheds using groups are rapidly accepting the value of the riparian the Rosgen StreamTyping Method. Vegetation data resource. They are just as rapidly developing methods have been gathered at each cross-section site in the six forevaluating riparian areas which relate to their con­ subwatersheds. The other was theAmericorps project cerns. Several of these riparian inventory procedures on the east side of the state. are excellent and gather the necessary field data. These inventories are usually completed to determine Two teams of Americorps people have been gath­ a habitat factor or a vegetative rating or to examine a ering riparian data in the East River Riparian Project specific riparian site problem. However, the data have Area. This includes the Sioux, Vermillion, and James not been compared and evaluated in a manner that river basins plus the northeast comer of South Dakota. would set up riparian ecosystems that can be identi­ The data from the Brookings team are entered and fied in their seral stages. have been examined to a limited extent. The Mitchell team data are just being entered, and the Upper Bad A systemneeds to be established forevaluating River data await furtheract ion. riparian area ecosystems based on the physical and biological factors of the region that identify each For now, there aremore questions thananswers. ecosystem'sseral stages. This information could and Here are a few of the observations thus far. would be used and transferred between agencies and other resource management groups. The predominant land use is no use or continu­ ous grazing; both favor cool-season vegetation. Also The principal physical and biological factors used this has been a very wet period forea stern South in thissystem would include geographic location, geol­ Dakota; some vegetative patterns may be showing this ogy (soils), temperature and rainfall (climate), vegeta- overly wet influence.

40 On the wet/marshy sites the vegetation is domi­ have been evaluated using the Bureau of Land nated by Spartinapectina ta, Care.xat herodes, Scripus Management System of functioning, functioning at fluviatilis, Typ ha latifolia, and Salixam ygdaloides. risk, and nonfunctioning. Shumm's Channel Evolution Other grasses, small forbs, and older aged trees were Model is also noted, along with soils, land resource also present. There were very few new seedlings area, channel width, riparian area width, legal descrip­ apparent. In the upland springy/fen sites a few vari­ tion, land use, stream order, depth to water table, and eties of Juncus spp were present. drainage classification.

In the drier/upland sites the common vegetation The data are being reviewed at the present time. was dominated by Agropyrons repens, Bromus inermis, It appears that moreatte ntion needs to be given to Care.x atherodes, Spartina pectinata, and Calamagrostis watershed relationships and patterns and less effort to canadensis.Several identifying sites other grasses, forbs, that are available and trees were also Riparian areas directly in fluence nonpoint source pol­ foraccess and eval­ present. lution since allsurf ace .water and to a lesser extent uation. There groundwater leaving a wa tershed must tra vel in, on, appear to be some In the over, and through rip arian corridors as it moves items to examine wet/nonuse sites more closely, espe- downstream. vegetationwas . cially to see if cer­ dominated by tain types or Phlaris arundinacea, species of vegeta­ Spartina pectinata, and Care.x atherodes. Many of the tion are good indicators of riparian site health. It also nonuse sites have been heavily flooded during some appears that channel and valley slope, steepness of period of the year. On sites where there had been no topography, higher stream orders, and intensity and use for 2-5 years, vegetation was very dense, so dense history of land use need more observation. thatit may be preventing new seedlings from estab­ lishing. If any individual or any agency has any ideas or suggestions to move this riparian classificationeffort Almost all sites were silt loam soils, so no forward, feel freeto discuss them withSa ndy Wyman, soil/vegetation patterns have been observed. Sites 605-692-8754, or Pat Kuck, 605-773-4216.

41 RECENT CORPS OF ENGINEERS EFFORTS IN EASTERN SOUTH DAKOTA

Kenneth S. Cooper

Omaha District, USA Corps of Engineers 215 North 17th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68 102

The Corps of Engineers has conducted studies on occurring in the fall andwinter. The river feeds many the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux riversin recent wetlands that are directly or indirectly adjoined to the years. A summary ofthe analysis for each basin follows: river. Some of these wetlands could be modified to improve their productivity. Though no plan can pro­ Aberdeen Area. Flood control studies were vide a fullyreliable water supply to meet desired mini­ conducted in the James River Basin in 1988 and 1989. mum flows in the LakePlain, small strategically locat­ The only feasible plan for flood control identified in ed storage sites could significantly reduce the periods that effort is in the Abercleen area. The proposed pro­ of "no flow'' in the Lake plain. The James River Water ject is a 2.7-mile levee on the northeast side of Development District is currently working with the Aberdeen which will provide 100-year protection and counties and local landowners to determine their prevent approximately one half of expected average interest in pursuing these environmental efforts into annual damages to structures and contents. The levee the feasibilityphase . Point of contact forthis project is will essentially block existing drainage to Moccasin Mr. Ralph Roza, and he can be reached at (402) 221- Creek with a combination of culverts with gates and 4574. detention ponds incorporated into the design to miti­ gate interior drainage problems. The project has a cost Vermillion River Basin. Flood controlst ud­ of approximately $2.8 million and will provide protec­ ies were conducted in the Vermillion River Basin in tion for 1,273 residences and 20 businesses. The pro­ 1991 and 1992. The studies looked at ways to provide posed project would affect about 22 acres of wetlands flood damage reduction benefits foragricultural as in three locations. Mitigation activities will include well as urban areas. Due to potential severe environ­ replacing the wetlands and using indigenous grasses mental impacts, channelization of the Vermillion River as ground cover on the levee which will reduce mow­ was considered unacceptable. A series of small dams ingrequir ements and allow the levee to function as a were evaluated but ultimately rejected for lack of eco­ travel corridor foranima ls. Point of contact forthis nomic feasibility. No additional studies are planned by project is Mr. Mike Barnes, and he can be reached at the Corps of Engineers at this time. Point of contact is (402) 221-4605. Mr. Ken Cooper, and he can be reached at (402) 221- 4575. James River. An environmental planning studywas undertaken in 1991 and 1992 to explore Big Sioux River. The Corps of Engineers has opportunities to provide minimum flow to the upper not conducted a basin-wide analysis of the Big Sioux James River (the Lake Plain) especially in the fall and River since the 1960s. Although there are significant winterper iods. On average, the river at Columbia has flooding problems in the Big Sioux River Basin, resolu­ 130 days per year of no flow. Of those, 93 days are in tionof these challenges will require joint support from the fall and winter seasons. The minimum flow consid­ South Dakota and Iowa. Large drainage areas in both ered acceptable (20 cubic feet per second) is not met states contribute significantly to the flooding problems an average of 214 days per year with 136 of those in the basin.

42 Watertown Area. In 1994, the Corps complet­ ject until the status of local support changes. Point of ed flood control studies in the Watertown area. contact forthe project is Mr. Ken Murnan, and he can Significantflood control problems exist around Lake be reached at (402) 221-4020. Kampeska and along the Big Sioux River in the City of Watertown. The only feasible method of reducing flood damages to those areas is upstream storage. The SiouxFalls Area. The Corps is proceeding study identified a plan which provided a dry dam with detailed design on a plan to improve the level of capable of storing a 100-year flood about 3 miles protection at an existing Corps project at SiouxFalls upstream from Lake Kampeska. The structure would along the Big Sioux River. The currentproject pro­ reduce average annual flood damages in Watertown vides protection from a 40-year event, which is inade­ by 80% and by 81 % around Lake Kampeska. Only quate foran urban area. The proposed project would minor environmental impacts would result as a result increase the level of protection to a 100-year level of the drydam concept. As a result of two recent local from either Big Sioux River or Skunk Creek flooding. referenda on the project, neither the city nor county The project will improve thelevel of protection to over may support the project financially for 1 year. Other 2,000 homes and businesses in Sioux Falls at a cost of than addressing the relationship of groundwater and approximately $30 million. Point of contact forthe surface water, the Corps will not proceed with the pre­ project is Mr. Mike Barnes, and he can be reached at construction engineering and design phase of the pro- (402) 221-4605.

50,000

45,000 Comparison of Hydrology of 1 Discharg• - Frequency \ at Sioux Falls 40,000 : ...FY"" Sklink Creek \ "\Ylth Project Capacity 35,000 \ Lo-- � ------30,000 i...-- Discharge 25,000 ------(c.f.s.) ..-- Existing Project Capacity 20,000 /

15,000 / I/ ,/ 10,000 / l 5,000

0

0 100 200 300 400 500

ReturnInterval (yean)

From U.S. Corps of Engineers flood protection report, 1993.

43 DISCUSSION OF THE CORPS' SECTION I 0/404 REGULATORY PROGRAM

Steve Naylor

Corps of Engineers Rm 317, Federal Building Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

The Department of the Army Regulatory Program into waters of the United States. Waters of the United is one of the oldest in the federal government. Initially States is defined (33 C.F.R. 323.2) as all Section 10 the mission of the program was simple and straight waters; all interstate waters, including their adjacent forward: that is to protect and maintain the navigable wetlands; and all other waters such as interstate lakes, capacity of the nation's waters. Changing public needs, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, new statutory mandates, and increased stress on nat­ prairie potholes, wet meadows, or natural ponds. In ural resources and the subsequent increased public general, 404 jurisdiction extends to all waters of the awareness of the importance of our natural resources United States to the maximum extent permissible have changed the complex.ion of the program. under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

The legislative origins of the current Corps of The Omaha District of the Corps of Engineers, Engineers program date back to the Rivers and headquartered in Omaha, Neb., has a geographic regu­ Harbors Act of 1890 (superseded) and 1899 (33 latory responsibility that encompasses all or parts of U.S.C. 401, et. seq., Section 10 of the Act 33 U.S.C. six states, including all of South Dakota. Each state 403) which covers construction, excavation, or deposi­ has a field office (South Dakota's is in Pierre) that con­ tion of materials in, over, or under such waters, or any ducts the bulk of permitting business. General duties work which would affect the course, location, condi­ of this office include processing applications forper­ tion, or capacityof those waters. Typical activities that mits, providing application assistance, conducting require Department of the Army authorization pur­ enforcement actions relative to unpermitted activities, suant to Section 10 include boat docks, water intakes, permit compliance, and public education/outreach utility lines, bank stabilization, and dredging. Waters work. in South Dakota regulated under Section 10 include theMissour i River, James River, Big Sioux River Permits issued by the Corps of Engineers can be (Highway 77 Bridge to the mouth-5 miles), Lake broken down into two basic categories: general per­ Traverse, and Bois De Sioux River (from Lake Traverse mits and standard individual permits. General permits to the South Dakota/North Dakota state line). are issued on a nationwide or regional basis. In simple terms, general permits are issued to the general pub­ The otherleg islative authority administered by lic, or to a specific group or agency, in advance of the the Corps of Engineers is Section 404 of the Clean discharge, for certain specific activities thathave been Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act came determinedto cause only minimal individual and about as a result of amendments to theWater cumulative environmental impact. Permits forthese Pollution ControlAct in 1972 and 1977. Under the activities have gone througha public interest review provisions of Section 404, the Secretary of theArmy, process prior to issuance. Any individual project, to be acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to authorized by a general permit, must meet the terms, issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public limitations, and conditions of the general permit. hearings, forthe discharge of dredged or fill material Examples of types of activities that have been autho-

44 rized by general permit include boat ramps, backfill aesthetics, wetlands, cultural resources, navigation, forutility lines, fishhabitat structures, minor road fish and wildlife values, water quality, and any other crossings, minor bank stabilization, and fills associated factor judged to be important to the needs and welfare with wetland enhancement and creation projects. of the people. Although regional and nationwide permits are avail­ able foruse by the general public, many of them Today a major portion of the Corps regulatory require notification to the Corps of Engineers prior to program is centered around applications foractivities commencement of the activity. in wetlands generally derived from urban expansion activities or from agricultural related activities. The In general, standard individual permits are 404 programis generally regarded as the most power­ required forprojects that cannot be permitted by gen­ fulwet lands protection law on the books. This pro­ eral permit. This permittype is the basic form of gram establishes high standards of sensitivityto wet­ authorization and generally involves three distinct lands fortheir public values of water purification, processes: pre-application consultation, formal project floodcontrol, fish and wildlife habitat, and other rec­ review, and decision making. For the Corps of ognized functions and values. The program is also sen­ Engineers to issue a permit, the following four basic sitive to our nation's waters in general. The program standards must be complied with: The project must be does, however, also recognize the need to provide for found to be not contrary to the public interest (from a reasonable use of private property and economic local, regional, state and national perspective) ; the development. project must be found to comply with all other applic­ able federal regulations (i.e., Threatened and When the Corps issues a Departmentof the Army Endangered Species Act, National Historic permit it is because there is a need for the project; Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, there are not practicable alternative sites or methods and others); the project must not violate the state's forattaining the objectives of the project that would water quality standards (i.e., Section 401 of the Clean have less adverse impact on the environment; and the Water Act administered by the South Dakota proje�t is designed to prevent or minimize adverse Department of Environment and Natural Resources); impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Many times such and the project permits are issued must be the least only after consider­ environmentally Th e 404 program is generally regarded as the most able efforton the damagingpract ica­ powerful wetlands protection la w on the books. part of the Corps, ble alternative (i.e., the resource agen­ comply with the cies that are 404(b) (l) involved in the pub­ Guidelines; 40 C. F.R. 230). Public input is solicited by licinterest review process, and theapplicant to work the Corps viathe issuance of a public notice (15 to 30 out a project design that will meet the objectives and days) with the intent to obtain the information neces­ the spirit of the Clean Water Act. saryto evaluate the probable beneficialand detrimen­ tal impactsof the project on the public interest. Public More information on the Corps of Engineers hearings are held if comments raise substantial issues RegulatoryProgram can be obtained by writing or which cannot be resolved informally and the Corps calling: determines that information from such a hearing is needed to make a fully informed decision. In making Corps of Engineers a final permitdecision, no one factorby itself can Regulatory Office force a permit decision. Instead the decision represents Rm 317, Federal Building the net effectof balancing all relevant factors. Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Relevant factors may include conservation, economics, (605) 224-8531

45 SOUTH DAKOTA'S SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND SUPPORTIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING

Joan M. Bortnem

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 523 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

The passage of the Clean Water Act, quickly fol­ and wetlands in various combinati<;>nsmeant to reflect lowed by the adoption of state law, required South actual beneficial uses and attainable water qualitylev­ Dakota to develop regulations assuring the protection els. Beneficial uses designations include domestic of the state's water quality. The legal definition of water supply use, five aquaticlife uses, two recreation­ surface waters of the state is very inclusive in that it al uses, wildlife propagation, and stockwatering use, contain lakes, streams, wetlands, stock ponds, irrigation use, and commerce and industryuse. drainage systems, and almost any other accumulation or conveyance of water, private or public. The surface The surface water quality standards program is water quality standards were developed to clarifyjust also composed of various processes intended to insure exactly what level of water quality was desired. the protection of water quality. These processes Basically, the surface water quality standards establish include water quality certification (commonlyreferred the minimum water quality "goals" forthe manage­ to as 401 certification), antidegradation, water ment of the state's waters, including the application to restoration or enhancement, use attainability, toxics both regulatory or non-regulatory activities. control strategies forthe protection of human health andaquatic life, site-specificwater quality standards The surface water quality standards are multi­ development, surface water discharge permit limits faceted, applying to the physical, biological, and chem­ development, and approved test methods and sam­ ical components of a water body. Narrative statements pling requirements. define oad,br general goals forthe protection, mainte­ nance, and restorationof water quality. These types of Future directives from the EPA in the water qual­ statements include prohibition of visible pollutants ity standards arena will include the development of and toxic pollutants in toxic amounts and the develop­ biological, sediment, wildlife, and possibly riparian cri­ ment of nuisance aquatic life. Concentration-based teria, designation of specific beneficial uses forwet­ numeric criteria, includingconventional, toxic, and lands, and endangered species consultation. It is in radiological pollutan.ts, compose the major portion of these areas especially that assistance and input from the regulations. water quality professionals across the state would be beneficial. Numericwater quality criteria are assigned to 11 beneficial use designations. If these criteria are met, While surface water quality standards are then the beneficialuses should be supported. A good enforceable regulations, theyshould be used as more example is the fecal coliform criterionof 200 than a regulatorytool fordetermining discharge lim­ colonies/100 mL or less. This concentration generally its, compliance, or impacts from a pollution incident. indicates thatfew, if any, pathogens may be present, They should be used to set targets and goals forwater ensures the protection of human health, and supports quality projects and to serve as a guide in the interpre­ the beneficial use of immersion recreation. Beneficial tation of water quality data when determining the uses are designated by rule-makingto lakes, streams, overall health of the waterbody.

46 Surface water quality standards are dynamic and (QA\QC) measures. Samples are delivered foranalysis complex. They reflect scientific principles as well as to laboratories implementing EPA approved test meth­ societal values. Water quality standards and beneficial ods and strict QA\QC . The sample data are stored on uses are adopted through administrative rulemaking the national EPA STORET computer database system which is a public process before the Water which is accessible to the STORET user community. Management Board. Surface water quality standards The department is also able to distribute this informa­ are authorized under South Dakota Codified Law tion in varying formats upon request, including basin­ Chapter 34A - 2 and are codifiedby regulation in the by-basin reports. Administrative Rules of South Dakota Chapters 74:03:02, 74:03:03 and 74:03:04. The surface water The information gained from this network pro­ qualitystandards are reviewed at a minimum of every vides invaluable insight into the status of South 3 years. Dakota's water resources. The data, used in conjunc­ tion with the surface water quality standards, provide As a major support to the surface water quality water qualityprof essionals the basis for designing standards program, the department maintains a wastewater treatment facilities, forim plementing or statewide ambient water qualitymonitoring network. justifyingwater quality improvements projects, deter­ It is comprised of 98 fixed stations located on major mining existing levels of water quality, determining rivers and streams. Water quality samples are collect­ water quality improvements and trends, determining ed on a fixed schedule and analyzed for a fixed num­ aquatic health and viability, and implementing water ber of parameters. The samples are taken and field quality research projects. The water quality monitoring testingperformed according to EPA approved sam­ (WQM) network sampling plan is evaluated and pling methods and quality assurance\quality control reviewed annually.

1,224of Assessed River 1,040of Asses.�ed Miles(30% ) areFully River Miles (26%) SupportingAss igned DoNot Support Beneficial Uses Assigned Uses

1,763 of Assessed RiverMiles (44%) PartiallySupport Uses

Condition of rivers in South Dakota. (From South Dakota Coordinated Soil and Wa ter Conservation Plan, South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts)

47 EAST RIVER RIPARIAN AREA IMPROVEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Sandra K. Wyman

Natural Resources Conservation Service Box 626 Brookings, South Dakota 5 7006

The South Dakota East River Riparian Area Sioux rivers has been conducted. The surveywill help Improvement Demonstration Project is an information determine which critical areas could benefitfrom and education effort designed to develop demonstra­ alternate management methods. Preliminary results tion projects thatwill improve the health and vigor of have been completed on the Big Sioux River and the riparian corridor; conduct a land use statistical Vermillion River drainages (see Table 1). The land use survey; and explore a potential riparian area classifica­ information was collectedfrom certifiedland use files tion system. This project intends to demonstrate the located at the Consolidated Farm Services offices in value of the riparian corridor, the corridor's impact on each county. A random-number sampling method was water quality, and the different resource management used to determinewhich s'ections would be invento­ practices that can be implemented in the riparian and ried. Land use was split into cropland, hayland, pas­ upland areas to improve the vegetation. The target ture, and other. audience includes resource managers, landowners, and the general public. Table 1. Land use.

Demonstration sites are being established Big Sioux Big Sioux Vermillion Vermillion throughout eastern South Dakota with willing River Drainage River Drainage (%) (%) (%) (%) landowners to see how they can use riparian areas withoutdeg radation occurring. Best management Crop 33 S2 S3 SS practices are being installed on the riparian and Hayland 3 40 3 6 Pasture S2 6 43 36 upland areas to determine the beneficial impact on Other 12 3 1 3 erosion, water quality, and cost effectiveness of the practices. Practices include grazing management, cross-fencing, stream bank stabilization, filter strips, livestock crossings, and alternative water sources such Streams were split into three classes (Table 2): as pasture nose pumps, dams, dugouts, pipeline, and l. The riparian zone connected to or part of cropland, tanks. hayland, or grazing land. The upper part of drainage areas-not a defined stream. " Nine demonstration projects are in the imple­ mentation or planning stage, and it is planned to have 2. The streamhas a defined channel and bank. It may at least seven additional projects developed. An eco­ be farmed or hayed, but the channel or riparian nomic analysis will be conducted on 10 case studies to area are unused due to wetness. determine the cost effectiveness of practice implemen­ tation. 3. Permanent waters (rivers or large streams).

A land use statistical analysis of riparian areas A riparian area inventory was started in forth e watersheds of the James, Vermillion, and Big September 1994 to gather information fora potential

48 Table 2. Land use by stream class. will be inventoried to see if there are any correlations that may assist land managers in deciding what the Big Sioux Ve nnillion potential of a site could be. Drainage Drainage (%) (%) Crop The project addresses the surface waters in the Class 1 2 54 James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux watersheds within 2 32 39 South Dakota. Moody County Conservation District is 3 66 7 the principal sponsor with co-sponsorship from Hayland Codington, Hamlin, Minnehaha, McCook, Hanson, Class 1 19 43 2 5 49 Davison, Turner, Beadle, Brookings, and Lake county 3 76 8 conservation districts. Deuel, Grant, Gregory, Hand, Pasture Jerauld, and Miner counties joined the project in 1995 Class 1 T 19 as partof the project extension. The project has been 2 28 67 extended from October 1995 to October 1997. The 3 72 14 project is a multi-funded effort which involves the Other Class 1 0 72 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2 7 18 Division of Conservation, Natural Resources 3 93 10 Conservation Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Consolidated Farm Services, Cooperative Extension Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ducks riparian classification system. Sites that appear to be Unlimited, local landowners, and other interested functioning, functioning at risk, and nonfunctioning groups.

Aquatic -----.-.­ Riparian Upland Ecosystem Ecosystem Ecosystem

Cross-section of a riparian area showing that the riparian area links the upland and aquatic ecosystems. (From Bureau of Land Management)

49 FEMA'S WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH DAKOTA

Gary N. Whitney

Federal Em ergency Management Agency 500 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

I. South Dakota Flood Disasters. Fiscal Emphasis winter storms (supersaturated ground and spring runoff). A. 1878 through 1972 In Spring 1881, the town of Vermillionwas floated Total Damage Estimated: $25,900,000 away by a flood causing $142,000 in damages. Vermillion was rebuilt on the bluffs behind the old D. 1992 town site to prevent a repeat occurrence. Rapid City Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA-948-DR-SD: experienced major flooding in 1878, 1883, 1907, Flooding was caused by heavy rains in June with 1920, 1952, 1962, and 1972. The 1972 floodkilled accompanying tornadoes, nine counties affected. 238 people, injured 3,057, and caused $66 million Total Minimum Damage Estimated: $1,200,000 in damages to Rapid City alone. During this same [non-ag losses only] period major floods also struck the Big Sioux, Cheyenne, James, Grand, Moreau, Vermillion, Elm, E. 1993 and Maple rivers; miscellaneous creeks; cities and Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA-999-DR-SD: townsof Vermillion, Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Baltic, Flooding was caused by early snowrnelt and heavy Brookings, Centerville, Montrose, Davis, Estelline, rains in May, June, and July, 39 counties affected. Flandreau, Trent, Dell Rapids, Sturgis, Deadwood, Four deaths. Egan, Canton, Yankton, Aurora, Mitchell, Renner, Watertown, Whitewood, Dempster, Castlewood, Total Minimum Damage Estimated: $228,000,000 Huron, Aberdeen, Black Hawk, and Box Elder. F. 1994 Total Minimum Cost: $208,252,200 PresidentialDisaster Declaration, FEMA-1031-DR-SD: [fiscalinf ormation missing for several flood events] Flooding in 21 countieswas caused by residual supersaturated groundwater tables from the 1993 B. 1984 flood, heavy summer rainstorms, and groundwater Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA-717-DR-SD: rising into basements, etc. Flooding along theJames, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers was caused by·record snowfall and Total Minimum Damage Estimated: $6,451,000 heavy spring and summer rains. [non-ag losses only]

Total Damage Estimated: $289,000,000 G. 1973-1994 Non-presidential floods: 1976, 1979, and 1983. c. 1986 Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA-764-DR-SD: Total Damage Estimated: $1,500,000 Flooding in the Glacial Lakes region and along the [non-ag losses only - no fiscal data available for Big Sioux Riverwas caused by fall rains and heavy 1979 and 1983.

50 II. FEMA Constraints/Concerns B. Response:

H. Cycle of Destruction: Historically, disasters occur, 1. Public Assistance process (only public property) people rebuild, disasters occur again, people rebuild a. Preliminary Damage Assessment again, in a never-ending cycle of damage-rebuild b. Disaster Field Office repeated damage. FEMAis charged with breaking c. Inspection Teams thiscycle and eliminating or permanently reducing the impact of natural disaster on the country. PA spent $7,250,841.00 to date since 1986 (does not include local share). I. Financial Resources: FEMA has only limited finan­ cial resources and budgets are being trimmed. As a 2. Federal Response Plan Emergency Support nation we cannot count on unlimited assistance Functions (ESF) Activation from the federal government. C. Recovery: J. National Flood Insurance Program: Increase partic­ ipation by governments to enable citizens to partici­ 1. Technical Assistance (floodplain, hydrology, pate. New changes will help improve insurance cov­ engineering) [limited assistance when no erage in flood hazard areas. Presidential Disaster Declaration is obtained] 2. Individual & Family;Grant Program (IFG, only K. Floodplain Ordinances/Restrictions: Improve the forindividuals /families) effectiveness and panicipation by local govern­ a. Inspection Teams ments. b. Only available with a Presidential Disaster Declaration of sufficient magnitude L. Acquisition & Buyouts: FEMA's preferred solution to flooded areas. IFG spent $768,822 during 1993 (the only disas­ ter which activated the program) M.Local Responsibility: Breakingthe cycle begins at the local level. FEMA emphasizes the formation of 3. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) local hazard mitigation teams to organize the solu­ a. Only for governments and certain private tions to flood problems. non-profit corporations b. Can be used to help individuals c. Only available with a Presidential Disaster Declaration III. FEMAActi ons. Coordinated through DEM HMGP has allocated $5,166,625 forflood miti­ A. Pre-Disaster Planning/Training: gation projects since 1992.

1. Local Emergency Management Offices D. Mitigation: 2. Local Emergency Plannihg Committees (LEPC) FEMA's emphasis on mitigation is to promote local 3. Local Hazard Mitigation Teams hazard mitigation teams to identify and evaluate 4. Disaster Exercises potential solutions to local flooding problems.

51 NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM

Duane Murphey

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 523 East Capitol Avenue Pierre. South Dakota 5750 1

The South Dakota Nonpoint Source Control e) Serve as a focal point forinformation, education, Program seeks to improve and maintain the water and public awareness regarding nonpoint source quality of South Dakota's rivers, lakes, wetlands, and pollution control. groundwaters through the control of nonpoint sources of water pollutants. Nonpoint sources are those which f) Provide oversight of nonpoint source control activi­ contribute pollutants from dispersed areas such as ties and prioritize the activities. land runoffor bank erosion. g) Provide a forumfor discussion and resolution of Although the Department of Environment and program conflicts. Natural Resources (DENR) is the lead agency fornon­ point source control in South Dakota, the program is The interagency coordination fostered by the really a joint effort of a consortium of federal, state, task force resulting in shared goals and resources is and local agencies and groups. Efforts are coordinated the primary reason that the South Dakota Nonpoint through the South Dakota Nonpoint Source Task Source Control Program is one of the most successful Force, which is an open membership group currently in the nation. comprised of 32 agencies and interest groups. The South Dakota Nonpoint Source Program The duties of the task force are: achieves its water quality goals by implementing a) Provide a forum forthe exchange of information on watershed-based projects through local sponsoring activities which impact nonpoint source pollution groups such as conservation districts and water devel­ control. opment districts. All activities are nonregulatory. The program promotes voluntaryparticipation by provid­ b)Prioritizewater bodies fornonpoint source control ing information and education, planning and technical activities. assistance, and financial assistance. c) Provide guidanceand application procedures for The information and education needs are met funding of nonpoint source control projects and through activities as diverse as holding water festivals ' review and approve project fundingproposals across the state, hosting conferences such as this one, which request funds under sections 205 (j) or 319 a television advertising campaign, and direct support of the Clean Water Act. to project sponsors. Activities are coordinated by the NPS I&E Coordinator who is employed by the d) Serve as thecoordinating body forthe reviewand Department of Agriculture. direction of federal, state, and local governmental programs to assure thatthe programs allow Planning and technical assistance is provided by achievement of nonpoint source pollution control in DENR, DOA, and NRCS. When DENR is contacted by a an efficientmanner. potential sponsor, we assign a project officerto work

52 directly with the sponsor to develop the project assess­ include CFSA ACP, Consolidated Water Facility ment, workplan, and funding applications. DENR has Construction funds, Conservation Commission grant recently developed a planning manual, the "Citizen's funds, landowner cash, and in-kind services. These and Guide to Lake and Watershed Projects," and associated many other funding sources are discussed in "The materials to furtherassist project sponsors with project South Dakota Nonpoint Point Source Program Manual." development and management. At any one time,the Nonpoint Source Control Funding fornonpoint source projects usually Program is involved in about 60 I&E, development, includes a mix of sources. A major source of funds are and implementation projects. Budgets for these pro­ EPA 319 grant funds. They make funds available on a jects total approximately $20 million. These projects competitive basis with a 60% federal/ 40% nonfederal are summarized in the "South Dakota Nonpoint match ratio. Otherfunds in a project budget typically Source Program Annual Report."

53 STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION GRANTS

Keith L. Harner

Division of Conservation South Dakota Department of Agriculture Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

From Fiscal Year 1987 through FY 1992, the purposes. It was discovered that refundswere not State Conservation Commission administered a small being requested on all that was eligible, and that per­ grantprogram for the State's 69 conservation districts. haps as much as $1.5 million might be available for The program was funded with an annual appropriation use. However, it will probably be a declining fund as of $300,000 to $350,000 from the state's general fund. farmers switch more to diesel equipment.

Many grant projects were completed during We presented our proposal to the Governor and thoseyears . However, the size of the grants severely the Legislature. We used the argument that the source limited the scope of the projects. of nearly all of the tax was from agricultural off-road use of fuel. Since some of the money was not being Meanwhile, the Conservation Commission, the returned, it should be at least committed to agricultur­ South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts al projects. Our grant fundwould do that. The argu­ and the Soil Conservation Service formally agreed to ment was accepted, and we were authorized to use develop a long range plan for direction of cooperative $850,000 of the fund in FY93. Afterthat, we were efforts in resource management. A committee of the authorized to use up to $1.5 million, if the fund will prime sponsors completed the "South Dakota produce that much. Coordinated Soil and Water Conservation Plan" in December 1991. With this change in appropriations and the fact the fund produces less than $1.5 million, we do not The Coordinated Plan was submitted to the have as much money for Commission grants as had Governorand the 1992 session of the Legislature. been anticipated and have less than the need identi­ With the approval of the Governor, the Legislature fied by the Coordinated Plan. But, there are still some also approved the plan by resolution. positive things about the grant funding.

One of the recommendations of the Coordinated The Conservation Commission has approved 37 Plan was an increase in state funding and in local grant projects under the new system. These have aver­ funding. This funding, with all available federal fund­ aged almost $48,000 per grant. While this is not a ing, was needed to reach established goals by the year large amount, the money has provided flexibility for 2005. We were told by the Governorthat he would significant accomplishments. First, the grants are large supportthe identified need for increase of state grant enough to be packaged with funding from other funds from $350,000 to $1,500,000 per year if we sources to increase the economic effectiveness of a could find a source of funding other than the state project. These other sources include government agen­ general fund. cies at the federal, state, and local levels. They also include private organizations-Ducks Unlimited is an A search foralternate funding zeroed in on the example-as well as landowners, who usually provide refundable taxes paid on gasoline used foroff -road a fairpercentage of the cost.

54 Projections done by the conservation districts 1994, it revised the rules with input from the districts indicate that each dollar of grant funding approved to and others. We hope these new ruleswill streamline date will generate $3.77 of other funds, so $1,771,365 operations forevery one. approved for grants by the Commission will generate $8,454,499 of other funds. There are some conditions which must be met if our grant program is to be most effective. The source A second advantage of the present grant system of fundingmust remain viable, the appropriations is flexibility of the Commission to direct funding to must be made each year, and the conservation dis­ better quality projects. Each project competes with tricts and otherlocal sponsors must be able and will­ others forfunding. The Commission can give extra ing to invest time and effort into planning and man­ weight to those projects which are based on better aging the projects. Another important factoris the resource plans, particularly if they are holistic and availability of funding from the other sources. We will address watershed areas. be veryli mited in our capabilities forres ource man­ agement, if our only source of funding is the little The Commission initially adopted rules for grant grants program administered by the Conservation administration under the present system in 1992. In Commission.

55 RIVER SERVICES AND PROBLEMS FOR RIVER-SIDE COMMUNITIES

Todd M. Loomis and C. R. Berry

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007

Rivers in easternSouth Dakota have had a long on the Big Sioux and 0% on the Vermillion. Treated historyof give-and-take relationships with thepeople waste water and storm runoffwere directed to the who reside next to them. Before the Dakotas were set­ rivers in almost all cases. Recreational use by town tled, rivers gave NativeAmer icans food,jewelry, and dwellers was 100% on the James, 80% on the Big tools derived from organisms in the river. The power Sioux, and 57% on the Vermillion. A general opinion of the falls on the Big Sioux River gave some early set­ of those surveyed was that the rivers do not contribute tlers the idea that a townsite would prosper; we now substantially to the economies of the towns. know that site as South Dakota's largest city, Sioux Falls. The rivers have also done their share of taking. Survey respondents also identified several prob­ In 1957, the Big Sioux took pans of Sioux Falls during lems because of the rivers. Eighty-six percent of the a flood. At Columbia, S.D., the James took away its towns on the Vermillion reported problems compared water and went dry fora period of 623 consecutive to 60% along the James and Big Sioux rivers. Flooding days betweenJuly 13, 1958, and March 26, 1960. was the greatest concern. Localized solutions to flood­ ing have been somewhat effective, but the ultimate To better understand municipal issues along the solution includes watershed management. James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers, engineers, city administrators, and other municipal stafffrom 27 Most spokespersons indicated that their towns towns providedinfor mation in interviews including have limited interaction with the rivers; however, demographics, water use, recreation, and problems some towns have made strides to improve this rela­ associatedwith each river. Towns ranged from tionship. The city of Sioux Falls has been developing a Westfield (pop. 160) to Sioux Falls (pop. 81,343) and greenway project, which limits building near the Big from Rock Valley on the Rock River in Iowa to Sioux Riverand includes parks and trails along its Jamestown on the James River in North Dakota. banks. In addition, representatives of several cities Surveyed towns use river water for homes, industry, indicated that they would like to improve public sewage disposal, storm runoffdi sposal, and recreation. access to the rivers. Of the 27 towns surveyed, only one indicated that its sewage treatment facilitywas substandard. Major In conclusion, our survey shows that towns problems included flooding, grnwth restriction, ero­ derive many services from the Big Sioux, James, and sion, and low water. Vermillion rivers. The potential for increased recre­ ational use may be an option too often overlooked. River water was used forresidences in 60% of Municipalities need to continue healthy relationships the towns on the James, 7% on the Big Sioux, and 0% with their river by maintaining acceptable waste treat­ on the Vermillion. Fortyper cent of towns on the ment and planning expansion and development to James used river water forindus try, followed by 26% avoid flood-prone areas.

56 WATER APPROPRIATIONS IN SOUTH DAKOTA

Ron Duvall

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 523 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, South Dakota 5750 1

South Dakota uses the "doctrine of prior approp­ On theJames River there are 137 rights for288 riation" to determine water rights. This is "first in time, cfs (cubic feet persecond or 449 gallons per minute). first in right," a slogan that symbolizes water appropria­ The total is approaching the set limit of 300 cfs. tion in most western states . The first water rights law Irrigation accounts for 220 cfs for use on about 18,000 was enacted in 1881, and the doctrine became state acres. Municipal use is 51 cfs. About 29 cfs is diverted law in 1907. In 1955, governmental reorganization into Lake Mitchell and 2 cfs into Ravine Lake in Huron. gave a citizen's board authority to issue water rights, Other uses account for 17 cfs, of which 12 cfs is for included groundwater, and established a procedure to diversion to Lake Byron for lake stabilization. claim vested water rights. On the Big Sioux, there are 67 rights for 126 cfs Water is the property of the people, who obtain (plus 2,000 cfs for the Department of Game, Fish and the right to use water through appropriation by the Parks). Irrigation uses 81 cfs to irrigate 6,200 acres; Department of Environment and Natural Resources, municipalities use 31 cfs . Sioux Fallsuses 17 .8 to artifi­ Division of Water Rights. Domestic use takes preference cially recharge theaquifer. Northern States Power over appropriative rights . Some examples of domestic Company uses 11 cfs, John Morrell Company 2 cfs, use are drinking and sanitary use in house, livestock Flandreau Indian School lcfs. No limit has been set on watering, and schools and re creation areas. appropriations on the Big Sioux.

A person wanting a water right prepares an appli­ On theVermillion River, there are three water cation including the amount, location, type of use, map rights for 6 cfs. Two rights are forinstream storageof of area, and application fee. Our staff prepares a report water for the City of Centerville and forthe Depart­ and recommendation and publishes a notice. If the pro­ ment of Game, Fish and Parks. The third is for irriga­ posal is uncontested, the appli cation is approved in 2 to tion of about 420 acres, and this permittee also uses 3 months. If contested, a decision is made at a public groundwater. No limithas been set on appropriations Water Management Board hearing. Board decisions can on the Vermillion River. be appealed to the Circuit and State Supreme courts. For an application to be approved, unappropriated The future of water rights appropriations depends water must be available . The applicant cannot impair on use. Irrigation appropriations are driven by climate existing rights. The water use has to be beneficial and and market; municipal appropriations by population in the public interest. growth. On the James, we may see decreased irrigation although the Garrison Projectmay affect theamount of There are over 6,000 water rights in South irrigation. On the Big Sioux therewill be increasing Dakota. Irrigatorshold 64%. Other rights are held by municipal use by Sioux Falls, but the availabilityof municipalities (16%), recreational interests (8%), groundwater in the Big Sioux aquifer alleviates the industryand commerce (8%), fish and wildlife (2%), need to use river water. On the Vermillion there will be and other miscellaneous users (1 %) . little change because of the availability of groundwater.

57 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON JAMES RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT

Darryl Raschke

James River Wa tershed Development District Box 849 Huron. South Dakota 57350

Local, state, and federal interests have long Attempting to develop a plan that would be sup­ viewed the James River as a vehicle to further ported by all interested parties, the James RiverWater enhance economic and environmental conditions for Development District (in 1987) held hearings at six residents in the James River Valley and statewide. locations along the James to obtain input into the Since the late 1800s, these governmental entities have selection of the appropriate James River Restoration spent millions of dollars on studies, pilot projects, and Project plan. As a result, the District adopted a three­ infrastructure developments. stage approach to river restoration: Stage I (limited channel cleanout), Stage II (tributary drainage con­ A fundamental obstacle preventing many of trol), and Stage III (bank stabilization). those studies from moving forward was the lack of broadbased supportfrom diverse interests along the entire James River and statewide. Recognizing this Stage I, Limited Channel Cleanout deficiency, in 1984, the South Dakota Legislature in cooperation with local interests commissioned the Stage I includes cleanout of the channel and DraftJames River Restoration Project Environmental flood plain area, improving recreational opportunities, Impact Study to examine all alternatives. Simultan­ and the protection or establishment of wildlife habitat eously, the Legislature abolished the former Oahe and areas. The components of Stage I include a coordinat­ Lower James conservancy sub-districts and established ed, comprehensive length-of-the-river tree and debris theJames RiverWater Development District to coordi­ removal program from the channel and flood plain nate, evaluate, and develop a coordinated "length-of­ area. The second cornponent is sandbar removal in . the-river" approach to managing the James River. the southern portion of the James River. Eight sand­ bars have been identified forremoval in the lower The 1984 Legislature authorized the James River reaches of the river. Improvement Program as part of the State Water Resources Management System. The program is a com­ Thethird component of Stage I is darn modifica­ bination of projects along the James intended to pro­ tion, and fourhave been identified. They are theThird vide flood controland municipal, industrial, agricultur­ Street Darn in Huron, the Hilltown Darn south of al, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Total cost forall Mitchell, theWolf Creek Darn in Hutch-inson County, projects in the program is $75 million. Federal legisla­ and the IzaackWalton Darn near Yankton. tion (P .L. 99-662) was approved in 1986 authorizing $20 million forflood control, streamflow improve­ Stage I also includes the procurement of public ments, and other features on the James as identified by access sites and the protection or establishmentof crit­ the Secretaryof theArmy. A reconnaissance statement ical wildlife habitat areas. Specific direction will be report was completed in September 1989. Individual provided to implement fishpools to alleviate winterkill components of the program have been actively pursued of fish and to tree planting forwildl ife enhancement, by local and state governmental entities. land protection, and erosion control.

58 Stage II, Tributary Drainage Control Stage III, Bank Stabilization

Stage II is a plan for drainage control on tribu­ · Stage III is a plan to reduce the bank degrada­ taries as such as the Elm and Maple Rivers and Dry tion that is occurring along the James Rivernear Run Creek based on the interest displayed by landown­ Yankton. Specifically, the bank stabilization program ers and residents. Specifically, Stage II is intended to will assist local project sponsors in protecting valuable provide flood control as well as municipal, industrial, shore lines that are being eroded. agricultural, recreational, and wildlife benefits.

Let's get together or we'll all kick the bucket! AW -191

Another "oldie" from Natural Resources Conservation Service ("old SCS") with a timeless message.

59 OTHER INFORMATION

A river belongs to no man. And it belongs to every man. And no man has any right to con­ tribute to the desecration of a river by irresponsible and abusive acts, at the expense of his neighbors and fe llow American citizens, near or fa r removed from the stream itself.

Richard J. Dorer The Conservation Volunteer. Nov·Dec 1968

60 WoRKSHO_P ATTENDEES: OPINIONS AND RIVER USES

Charles R. Berry and Craig L. Milewski

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007

Of the 106 workshopregistrants, 60 volunteered There is little information about the value of to participate in a survey. The surveywas designed to South Dakota's rivers forrecreat ion. About 45,000 res­ characterize attendees according to their 1) employ­ ident anglers and 20,000 nonresident anglers fish in ment, 2) opinions about river health, and 3) personal the state's rivers annually (USDI 1993). A 1970s study uses of rivers. Each respondent was also asked by Tim of recreation on the James River showed that the river Bjork at the beginning of the workshop to define four was used for 31 different activities (Hansen 1981). terms - watershed, watershed management, riparian Camping (about 600,000 hours annually) and fishing zone, and ecosystem. (140,000 hours annually) were the most popular activities from 1975 to 1979.

Employment Categories Most people described their job as "conservation Opinions on River Health oriented," with about equal numbers (N = 11 to 17) Most workshop participants felt that the health of administrators, agronomists, biologists, hydrolo­ of the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers was gists, and researchers. Most held jobs that required "fair." No one reported that river health was excellent, work in all three watersheds, but some focused on while seven felt river health was poor (Figure 2a). only one watershed (Figure la). Most participants also These opinions generally agree with data on how well had other duties and spent only part of their time South Dakota's rivers meet their designated uses

(mean = 30%) workingon issues in the James, (Keiryand Eidam 1991). Of the 3,965 miles of Vermillion, or Big Sioux watersheds (Figure lb) . streams that have been designated as fishable or swimmable, about 30% fully support assigned uses, 26% do not support assigned uses, and 44% partially River Use support assigned uses. Of the 60 participants, 49 lived in one of the watersheds, and all used the rivers for recreation. When asked to compare the role of tributaries in Fishing was the most popular activity with over half of the watershed with that of the mainstem river, about the group spending an average of 9 days per year fish­ half of the respondents felt that tributaries were more ing. Other popular activities were hunting, sightseeing, important. The remainder felt main rivers were more birdwatching, picnicking, canoeing, and camping. It is important. Research has shown that the length of sometimes suggested that today's natural resource small streams in a watershed greatly exceeds that of workers are less active participants in outdoors activi­ the main river (Leopold 1964), and some watershed tiesthan workers of years ago (Regier 1994). However, managers have suggested that management should attendees at our workshop appear to have an aware­ begin in the smaller streams (NRC 1992). Restoration ness and appreciation of the rivers and their resources or conservation projects in tributaries may be more and have used them. successful than those on a mainstem, and the cumula-

61 (a) (a)

N-beror Partlclpanta 215

so 20

215 115

20 10

I

10 0 Big 81oux Ver111llllOn Jamee All Otller Wate rshed

0 '-----''-----' l!-llent Good hlr Poor Opinion of River Health (b) (b)

40

20

10

0 Yer111llllon JamH All River

Fig 1. Survey results showing (a) number of participants from each watershed and (b) percentage of theirjob related to each river. 0 More l!qual LeH Importance of Tributaries va Mainstems tive impacts of projects in the headwaters would bene­ Fig 2. (a) Opinion of river health by survey fit downstream river reaches. However, sites on main­ participants and (b) their ratings of the stem reaches that are affected by local conditions may importance of tributaries and mainstem reaches. be improved by a specific land treatment or by a com­ bination of treatments.

culture waste management, erosion, floodcontrol, Current and Future Issues pesticides, non-point source pollution, riparian zone Surveyrespondents listed 44 contemporary management, water quality, and siltation. issues that theyfelt were influencingthe three water­ sheds (Table 1). The length of the list is an indication When asked to speculate about issues that future of the complexity inherent in a watershed manage­ watershed managers would face, the respondents list­ ment program. Issues most commonly listed were agri- ed a variety of issues such as climate change, coordi-

62 Table 1. Potential current and future concerns in the management of watersheds in eastern South Dakota as listed by workshop participants.

Concern Current Future Concern Current Future

Ag waste management x x Habitat loss x Biodiversity, fish, wildlife x x Hard engineering approaches Channelization, snag removal x x to watershed problems City storm sewer x (e.g., dams, riprap) x x Climate change x Herbicides/pesticides x x Conservation regulation x x lnstream flow, water quantity x x Cooperation/coor dination x Lack of data formany disciplines x Cropland management x x Non-point source pollution x x CRP program reduction:; x Non-structural solutions to flood/ Drinking water x drought impacts on human Economics/stabilized economics x habitation x Ecosystem planning x NPDES permitting approach x Education programs, Pathogens (water-born) x x resource awareness x x Point source pollution x Environment health, Plant communities x x resource conservation x Project implementation, Environmental restoration x x funding x x Erosion, siltation x x Recreation/ aesthetics x x Flooding/flood management, Riparian zone management x x mitigation x x Streambank stabilization x Floodplain encroachment x Technical assistance, lack of x Garbage x Urban expansion, runoff x x Geomorphology in stream Water appropriations, management x quantity x x Good crops, sustainable Water quality x x production x x Watershed Management x Grazing/rangeland management x x Wetland drainage x x Groundwater quality x x

nation, conservation reserve reductions, drinking that is drained by a stream system, that is, the total water, stabilized economics, ecosystem planning, edu­ land area above some point on a stream or river that cationprogram s, impacts to humans of nonstructural drains past that point" (Brooks et al 1991). Some solutions to floods, and sustainable production. authors use the word "catchment'' as synonymouswith watershed (Gordon et al 1993).

Definitions Offered Survey respondents offered 38 definitions of a All definitions of the four terms provided by par­ watershed, but most definitions generally agreed with ticipants are in Appendix A. The following are synthe­ the textbook definition (Appendix A) . Seventeen defin­ ses of participant responses. itions specificallymentioned a "point" or "destination" as an important part of the definition of a watershed. What is a watershed? A textbook definition is "the entire surface drainage area that contributes What is watershed management? An encom­ water to a lake or river" (NRC 1992). Another text­ passing definition provided by Brooks et al (1991) is book definition is "a topographically delineated area "the process of guiding and organizing land and other

63 Table 2. Summary of recreational uses of ment" (Odum 1971). A more complex definition eastern South Dakota rivers by workshop brings in the idea that there is interaction between the participants. Sample size is 49. Only activi­ environment and the organisms: "Any unit that ties listed by at least 5% of the participants includes all of the organisms in a given area interact­ are given. ing with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic Nu mber of Number ot Da,rs/Ye ar diversity, and material cycles" (Odum 1971). Brooks et Activity Participants Mean Median al (1991) say that the watershed is a hydrologic unit Camping 3 6.0 2.0 often used as a physical-biological unit (i.e., ecosys­ Canoeing/boating 13 6.8 5.0 tem) and a socio-economic-political unit for the plan­ Fishing 25 9.1 5.0 Hunting 12 12.0 5.5 ning and management of natural resources. Picnicking 4 8.0 4.0 Sightseeing/ Most survey respondents adequately defined an birdwatching 11 13.5 10.0 ecosystem by including the biotic, abiotic,and interac­ tion ideas in their definitions (Appendix A) . Some emphasized the biota more than theenvironment, and vice versa. Many specifically included humans and human activity as a component of an ecosystem, resource use on a watershed to provide desired goods which is certainly appropriate. Experts say that the and serviceswithout affecting adverselysoil and water goal of ecosystem management is to manage the resources." They state that this concept recognizes simultaneous sustainability of both the social and nat­ linkages between upland and downstream areas. Many ural environments (Pastor 1995). This goal was of the 34 definitions provided by survey participants espoused by Vice President Al Gore in the forward for (Appendix A) convey the concepts of minimizing his book Earth in the Balance which he wrote while effectsof humans on soil and water resources and of staying in Sioux Falls in 1992. He wrote "By over­ recognizing the links betweenterrestrial and aquatic whelming majorities, the American people reject the resources. argument... that we must choose between jobs and the environment. Instead, they believe that we can pros­ What is a riparian zone? A dictionary defini­ per by leading the environmental revolution and pro­ tion is "relating to the bank of a stream or lake." Some ducing for the world marketplace the new products authors add points about a special plant community, and technologies that foster economic progress with­ the duration of flooding, or introduce the idea that out environmental destruction." riparian zones are "an interface between terrestrial and aquatic systems" (Gregory et al 1991). Conclusion Workshop attendees offered 37 definitions for Workshop participants had a diversity of back­ the riparian zone (AppendixA) . Most definitions ground and disciplinary associations. This diversity is agreed with the"textbook" definitionof these "green reflected in the number of current and future issues strips that are located adjacent to streams and rivers" thatwere identified at theworkshop. Althoughthe (as one respondent wrote). However, some definitions group was diverse, the definitions of fourkey water­ strayedfrom theaccept ed, and onlyfour re spondents shed terms had similarities, which suggest thatwater­ assigned any functionto theripa rian zone. Respond­ shed-based concepts are by no means foreign to the ents mentioned functionalattributes using words like majorityof participants. This is encouraging since filter,buffer, influences, and processes. agreeing on concept definitions is one of the firststeps in problem solving and cooperation. Also encouraging What is an ecosystem? A simple textbook defi­ is the possibility that many problems with the condi­ nition is "living organisms and their nonliving environ- tion of the soil and water (e.g., erosion, siltation,

64 runoff, chemical contaminants, biodiversity) can be Literature Cited solved simultaneously by directly addressing land use Brooks, K.N., P. Folliott, H. Gregersen, and J. Thames. 1991. concerns (e.g., sustainable agricultural, ag waste man­ Hydrology and the management of watersheds. Iowa agement, grazing management, riparian manage­ State University Press, Ames. ment). Campbell, C.L., W. Heck, and T. Moser. 1990. Indicator If the main objective of agroecosystem managers strategy foragroecosys tems. Pages 1-11 of Section 8 in is maximum productivity with a minimum of external (C.T. Hunsacker and D.E. Carpenter, eds) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Ecological inputs (Campbell et al 1990), then managers must Indicators. United States Environmental Protection understand how physical, chemical, and biological Agency Report EPA/600/3-90/060, Research Triangle processes govern the flow of energy and material Park, North Carolina. resources from one area to another. Certainly, valu­ Campbell, C.L., W. Heck, T. Moser, R.P. Breckenridge, G. able material resources are soil and water, which are Hess, and J.R. Meyer. 1990. Indicator fact sheets for part of many processes. Excessive soil erosion agroecosystems. Pages 1-23 of Appendix Fin (C.T. Hunsacker and D.E. Carpenter, eds) Environmental depletes land productivity and results in incorporation Monitoring and Assessment Program: Ecological of less fertile soils into the plow layer, which may Indicators. United States Environmental Protection induce farmers to increase inputs of fertilizers. Agency Report EPA/600/3-90/060, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Subsequently, surface waters become degraded due to siltation, chemicals, and nutrients (Campbell et al Gordon, N.D., T. McMahon, and B. Finlayson. 1993. Stream 1990). hydrology: an introductionfor ecologists. John Wiley and Sons., New York.

Soil erosion is usually coupled with lack of infil­ Gore, A. 1992. Earth in the balance. Houghton Mifflin Co, trationand substantial increases in surface runoff. As New York. a result, areas lower in the drainage system suffer Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K. W. from increased flooding and decreased channel stabili­ Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian ty. These symptoms are commonly addressed with zones. BioScience 41 :540-551. symptomatic approaches in the formof dikes, channel­ Keiry, W., and 0. Eidam. 1991. Coordinated Soil and Water ization, and rip-rap which require energyand material conservation Plan. SD Assn of Conservation Districts. inputs. Relieving symptoms such as flooding may fur­ Hansen, D. R. 1981. angler and other recreational uses of therexacerbate downstream problems. Eventually the James River, South Dakota 1975-1979. South Dakota there is a breakdown in the sustainability of the agro­ Department of Game, Fish and Parks Final Report 81-6, Pierre. ecosystem, and there is a long-term decline in produc­ tivityin spite of increased energy inputs. Leopold, L. B. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. . Freeman, San Francisco.

In eastern South Dakota, the long-term sustain­ National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic abilityof agriculture is linked to long-term social, eco­ Ecosystems. National Academy press, Washington, D. C. nomic, and environmental concerns posed by work­ Odum, EP. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders shop participants. Perhaps an ecosystem approach to Company. Philadelphia. watershed management is the solution. However, Pastor, J. 1995. Ecosystem management, ecological risk, and management must be flexible so that use of land fos­ public policy. BioScience 45:286-288. tersrather thancompromises the long-term well-being Reiger, G. 1994. A blessing in disguise. Field and Stream. of SouthDak otans. The concern and willingness are September: 12, 14. present, but goals and strategies must be developed. USDI (United States Department of theInterior) . 1993. 1991 National Surveyof Huntingand Fishing and wildlife asso­ ciated recreation: South Dakota. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

65 SELECTED SOUTH DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES EDUCATION RESOURCES

Chris McCart

Department of Biology and Microbiology South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007

State EducationResources Coordinator, 220 North 7th Street, Spearfish, SD 57501, 605-642-9902. Environment Education Connections of South Dakota (EECSD). The state organization for Wetland Ecology Program. The South Dakota teachers and natural resource agency persons inter­ Discovery Center sponsors a program that takes stu­ ested in environmental education. Contact: Maggie dents on a day-long trip to explore wetland ecology

Hachmeister, EECSD Chair , 3305 W. South Street, with water test kits and plankton nets. Contact: Rapid City, SD 57702, 605-394-2391. TerryLewis, Education Director, SD DiscoveryCenter & Aquarium, Pierre, SD 57501, 605-224-8295. Aquatic Project WILD. An excellent activity guide forteac hers and resource agency persons. To obtain Prairie Watersheds. A thematic unit and traveling a copy, you must attend a 6-hour Project WILD resource box for 7-12 grades. Provides hands-on workshop. Contact: Steve Kirsch, Education Services activities forunder standing the watershed concept. Coordinator, Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Contact: Dr. GaryPeter son, Departmentof Biology 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, 605-773-5511. and Microbiology, Box 2207B, Ag. Hall 304, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, 605- Project WET. This is an water resources activity 688-6141. guide for grades K- 12. This curriculum is new to South Dakota in 1995. Contact: Clark Haberman, Non-point Source Information and Education Project SAVE Coordinator, Department of Program. Videos, interactive kiosks, storm drain Environment and Natural Resources, 523 East stencils ("do not dump - drains to str�am"), and Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, 605-773-6761. other resources are available. Contact: Roy Richardson, NPS l&E Coordinator, 605-773-5276. Project SAVE. A home-grown program for K-8 grades that includes a-binder with activities on RIVERQUEST. A program in which schools along the water quality, solid waste, and air quality. Contact: Big Sioux utilizethe river as a learningresource in Clark Haberman, Project SAVE Coordinator, environmental studies, math, science, language arts, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, art, and social studies. Contact: Dr. Steve 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, 605-773-6761. VanBockem, Augustana College, 29th and Summit, SiouxFalls , SD 57197, 605-336-4620. Greenworks! In 1994, the South Dakota Project Learning Tree received a grant to seed environmen­ Northern State University CUEST Center is the tal service projects. Projects can range from adopt­ SouthDakota state dissemination site forEPA mate­ inga stream or wetland, tree plantings, or coordi­ rials. Write fora 28-page list of educational materi­ nating a community collections program forbatter­ als for citizen groups and educators. CUEST, NSU, ies or motor oil. Contact: Beth Broyles, SD PLT Aberdeen, SD 57401, 605-622-2527.

66 National EducationSesources actions can pollute a lake. Minnesota Sea Grant Program, Minnesota University, Minneapolis, MN EE-Link. EE-Link is an online source of information 55414, 612-625-9790. about environmental education (EE). It provides teaching resources including full-text instructional National Directory of Citizen Volunteer materials, articles, catalogs, and grant information. Environmental Monitoring Programs. EPA Contact: National Consortiumfor EE and Training, 503/9-90-004. Contact: Your EPA Regional Office. School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-11 15, 313-998-6726. e-mail Save Our Streams. A Citizen Action Program. [email protected]. Ask fora "Save Our Streams Kit" and "Wetlands Watch Kit." Contact: Izaak Walton League of Free Aquatic Education Resources. Includes America, 1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B, Arlington, posters such as "The River Environment" and Virginia, 22209, 703-528-1818. "Wetlands are Wonderlands," a curriculum entitled "Groundwater: A Vital Resource," and booklets such Promoting Environmental Education: An as "Homemade Aquatic Sampling Equipment" and Action Handbook for State and Local "Septic Systems." Maximum order is 100. For a Communities. 1995. This book discusses how to complete list of resources, contact: Water organize state and local EE initiatives. The commu­ Management Library, Tennessee Valley Authority, nity of Custer, S.D., is one of the case histories Haney Building 2C, 1101 Market Street, highlighted in the book. Contact: NACD Service Chattanooga, TN 27402-2801, 615-751-7338. Center, P.O. Box 855, League City, TX, 77574-0855.

Educating Young People about Water: A Guide Terrene Institute. A non-profit organization spe­ to Goals and Resources. 1992 (updated appen­ cializing in environmental education and public dix included). Contact: Elaine Andrews, University outreach. Produces material forgovernment and of Wisconsin-Madison, Environmental Resources industry. Write forcat alogue, especially good is Center, 216 Agriculture Hall, 1450 Linden Drive, theirpublication "Clean Water in Your Watershed: Madison, WI 53706. FAX: 608-262-2031. A Citizen's Guide to Watershed Protection" ($19.95). Also publish NPS-News Notes, a free pub­ Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring: lication dealing with watershed restoration. An Environmental Education Program for Terrene Institute, 1717 K Street, N.W., Suite 801, Schools by William Stapp. Thomson-Shore Washington, D.C. 20006, 202-833-8317. Printers, 7300 Joy Road, Dexter, Ml, 48130. The Water Quality Catalog-A source book forpub­ Wow! The Wonders of Wetlands. 1991. An edu­ lic information materials. Contact: Water cator'sguide to providingactivities to help K-12 EnvironmentFed eration, 601 Wythe Street, kids understand wetlands, the wetland community, Alexandria,VA 22314, 703-684-2400. and wetland issues. Contact: Environmental Concerns, Inc., P.O. Box P, Education Department, National Nonpoint Source Federation. Created St. Michaels, MD 21663, 301-745-9620. as a watershed informationnetwork for watershed issues. Ask for theirRuno ffReport-Water shed Lake Gamefor Adults. Lake Game for Youth. Information Network News. Contact NNPSF, Box A game thatvisu ally illustrates how individual 30103, Kansas City, MO 64112, 800-795-3634.

67 SELECTED INFORMATION SOURCES FOR WATERSHED- RELATED MANAGEMENT

Doppelt, R., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr. 1993. lenges to ecosystem management. Midwest Entering the Watershed (a comprehensive new forest ecosystems provide the context. approach to river protection). 504 pages. Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-275-5. Paperback $27.50. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of A community- and ecosystem-based watershed Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy press, restoration initiative founded upon principles Washington, D. C. of watershed dynamics, ecosystem function, and conservation biology. This is a report on the status and function of surface water ecosystems; restoration efforts and associated technologies; and the research, Hesse, L., C. Stalnaker, N. Benson, and J. Zuboy, edi­ policy, and institutional reorganization needed tors. 1993. Proceedings of the Symposiumon fornational aquatic ecosystem restoration. Restoration Planning for theRivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. National Biological Service, Biological Report 19. Free from SD Department of Agriculture. 1991. South Dakota Publications Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coordinated Soil and Water Conservation Plan. 1849 C Street, N.W. Mail Stop 130, Webb Building, Division of Resource Conservation and Forestry. Washington, D.C. 20240. 523 East Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota.

Nontechnical reports on 22 rivers in the A plan adopted by State Legislature in 1992 Mississippi River watershed. Authors review has many facts about South Dakota water the status of the habitat and biota. Included resources, problems, and recommended are overviews of the Vermillion, James, and actions. Cheyenne riversof South Dakota, as well as much information about the Missouri River. United States General Accounting Office. 1994. Ecosystem management: additional actions needed LeMaster, D.C., and G.R. Parker, editors. 1991. to adequately test a promising approach. Ecosystem Management in a Dynamic Society. GAO/RCED-94-111. Proceedings of a Conference in West Lafayette, Indiana. Department of Forestry and Natural This report describes ecosystem management, Resources, Purdue University. actions needed for implementation, and barri­ ers to implementing ecosystem management. These proceedings provide examples and cri­ tiques of ecosystem management, and chal-

68 For in the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, we will understand only what we are taught.

Baba Dioum Central African Conservationist Appendix A. Responses to Workshop Te rminology Questions

Watershed (definitions of survey participants) Acres of cropland, rangeland, and creeks and drainage. These areas eventually are responsible for An area which contributes water to a common point, what ends up in our tributaries, creeks, and then our the boundaries of which are definedby hydrology and lakes and rivers. one's objectives. The drainage area which reaches a given point. The land area impacting the water under concern. All the land that drains to a particularplace . A geographical areadefined by drainage, typically named afterthe major stream or waterbody. The real An area that produces runoff to a water course. need is forclear and appropriate "terms" forthe com­ ponent parts of watersheds. An area with discrete boundaries that constrain the direction of water and sediment to one natural outlet. An area of drainage that passes through a common point. Area that sends surface runoffand subsurface water to a certain point. It is the entire ecosystem that contributes water to a river or stream. An area which contributes to a streamor lake.

A watershed is all land within an area where all "rain­ Water movement over land to a possible common drops" have the same destination. point.

The watershed is that area in which all water, both An area that contains an outlet that drains water, sedi­ surface and groundwater, flow together and are ments, and nutrients into a larger body of water. It released at a focal point (usually stream or river can be affected by all people, and animals within that mouth). Size can vary. area.

Any, all, or parts of a drainage basin depending on the Areaof land that gathers water and puts to a central specific watershed. It not only deals with the point at a lower elevation. stream/river itself but the land that drains into it. Area of land thataffects a particularbody of water, A watershed to me is the wholebasin that forms from i.e., tributaries, headwaters, pastures, crop fields, etc. theheadwaters of the major stream to the point it enters a large body of water. pie Big Sioux Riveris a A drainage area. prime example: from theheadwaters in northeastern South Dakota to theconfluence with the Missouri The area above (upstream) and around a stream, River. It includes all feeder streams, riparian areas, creek or other water bodies. and uplandland found in that basin. · Area of land which water is geographically confined to The land base that contributes runoff to a hydrologic drain into a single lake, stream, or river. Watersheds entity. vary in size.

71 An area that produces runoffwater to a specific point, Watershed Management (definitions of sur­ or concentrates runoffwater to a smaller area. vey participants)

The landmass or contributing area of a river. A suite of management practices used forthe purpose of sustaining the physical, chemical, and biological Includes all the area that drains to a specified point. integrity of the cultural and natural resources within a watershed. A 3-dimensional area including a river, all its tribu­ taries, drainages, all the water and land above and Consideration by all landowners and operations of the below ground that drains into the rivers. Could also impacts of their management decisions. include the air, flora, and fauna. This definition should also apply to lakes and maybe even aquifers. A water­ Who knows? shed is a type of ecosystem. Planning with water resources and goals in mind. Easy in a dosed system such as a lake. Watershed is lowest gathering point for water, along with land area It is the entire management (water control, water and associated water courses draining into that low quality, erosion control, livestock management, crop­ point along with associated groundwater systems. Less land, wildlife, etc.) within the macrocommunity of the simple for open systems such as riverene - these are watershed. It includes all tributaries and associated more a matter of how large an area one wants to deal uplands within the watershed. with - could say every water course draining into the point on the river above your arbitrary stopping point, Some type of objective that may look at a single goal or along with the land area drained by these water cours­ several goals, watershed management may be no "man­ es and associated groundwater system. agement" at all. No management is still management.

The geographic area that is hydraulically connected to Watershed management is managing at a watershed a river or stream. level. This constitutes managing all biotic and abiotic factors in such a way as to maintain stability and eco­ They are geographic areas that contain several natural logical integrity, again in a state of dynamic equilibri­ processes, i.e., sedimentation, flooding, evapo-transpi­ um. ration, that will ultimately drain into much larger water bodies. These areas, in addition, act as filtering A comprehensive approach in managing watersheds, areas, filtering sediments, and various pollutants. looking at the whole and determining the direction to go. My definition is: any drainage area with common problems and of a size compatible with holistic treat­ Total management of everythingwithin that water­ ment. shed basin, from farming practices on the upland to instream management to enhance fisheries popula­ Area of drainage defined by topography. The area of tions. land contributing to the flow of the body in question. That area of land that drains to a given point. A unit Practices undertaken to affect the runoff of a hydro­ of landscape which all drains into a single creek, logic entity. stream, or river. Hydrologically, a watershed is defined as the area contributing surface water to a To Implement BMPs. To improve lakes and rivers specified point in a system. Is the area of the surface water quality. To encourage people to improve habi­ in which water flows. From the very highest elevation tats around rivers and lakes forcleaner water. Educate flowing down hill (and standing bodies) to the oceans. the public on what a watershed does.

72 An attempt to minimize the negative impact of human Attempts on the partof human beings to control activities. and/or understand, then control a watershed as an ecosystem. It is the proper use of a drainage area to make sure that all uses (ecological, physical, quality, etc.) are Managing the resources (SWAPA) within thewater­ improved or sustained. shed to meet the goals and objectives of the stakehold­ ers. Management of ecosystem components in a collective, cooperative manner so that these systems operate Watershed management is management that is functionally to provide the long-term benefits required designed to provide benefits for all aspects of thearea forfuture generation to come. it encompasses. Management should limit soil erosion, provide stable stream banks, provide vegetation that Manage natural resources in a watershed to maintain will benefit stream bank stabilization, contain and or develop the desired use of the watershed resources. control pollutants, and provide for a multiple of uses by both land users, owners and dwellers. Managing those things which contribute to a stream or lake. It is holistic management of a watershed which will allow sustainable levels of production to meet the eco­ To work toward sustainable physical, biological, and nomic and other needs of people. economic stability of a complete drainage basin. Managing the watershed in a way that takes in all A coordinated effort among all parties involved for social, environmental, and economic factors to ensure betterment/sustenance ofenviro nmentally beneficial the quality of the watershed. practices. The process of managing and maintaining healthy Managing all resources in a watershed, so there is a interactions between man and land. minimal effect on all living and non-living things in a watershed. Wise, sustained use of a watershed according to a set of pre-determinedgoals and principles. Practices forprotecting condition of river or lake by managing the whole watershed. Management is difficultto define. The best way to describe it is an attempt to controlthe reaction of the The use of land and water in an area. watershed. Anotherdefinition might be maintaining the integrity of the watershed. A holistic plan foreveryth ing thataffects thewater quality such as animal waste, no till, minimum till, bufferstrips, etc.

Practices implemented to cause a positive impact on RioarianZone (definitions of survey theentire area and ecosystem. participants)

The utilization of land and water resources within a An area bordering a water body on the landscape with watershed forthe sustainabillty of thosewho depend abiotic and biotic characteristics which are transitional upon it forsurvival. Properuse of soil and water between upland and lowland habitats. resources throughout the drainage area. Managing all the above (plant, animal, earth, air and human) in a A buffer zone impacted by, and impacting, open water watershed forthe purposes decided on by consensus. drainages.

73 This one is just like wetland definitions with all the An area adjacent to a stream (SO') or lake. same controversy stemming from an all-encompassing ecological definition vs. any regulatorydefi nition. Zone of natural or restored permanent vegetation in active floodplain area. But what about this zone that The transition zone between upland and aquatic areas. doesn't have permanent vegetation?

It is the immediate upland area adjoining a river or It is the lush green area of natural vegetation at the stream. The riparian area is usually a permanent cover edge of a stream that filters everything entering the type that may vary in width and that is nominally pro­ water, and securing the banks of the given tected from agricultural practices and other develop­ stream/river. ments. Area of land in which soils and vegetation are a prod­ Riparian area is the zone between water and upland. uct of what theyreceive fromsurrounding upland s.

A riparian zone is the portion of land immediately Stream and adjacent area that is affected by stream, or adjacent to the stream. will influence stream conditions.

The area between the terrestrial and aquatic zones. It It's a relationship between use practices and the envi­ is in theactive floodplain and has great diversity in ronment. slope, plant life, animal life, etc. The land bordering a body of water (creek, stream, I interpret this as the area from the water's edge to etc.). established successional terrestrial vegetation, i.e., trees. Area along a body of water which is affected by that water. That transition zone between water areas and upland areas. An area of land with perennial vegetative growth which is adjacent to a water body. The specificpur­ An area which is adjacent to water - streams, creeks, pose is to treat runoffwater before it enters the water rivers, that carry our waters through the state. body.

The floodplain which is affected by the water/water The upland area (corridor) immediately adjacent to a table of a river/water body. stream.

Thatarea along a stream which are (or would be) The area near a stream thatis influenced by the water occupied by hydrophytic plants. table.

It is the ecosystem that is associated and located near Ecotone or area of tension affected by flooding- a water body. between stream at lowest point and definite upland (not flooded). Can see vegetation zones and these are Streamside vegetation zone where the river or stream dynamic in composition. interact on a regularba sis. The physical and biological components associated Areabetween a surface water area and land that is with a stream or river. usually free of surface water. This area is subject to intermittent flooding. Riparian in simple terms are the green strips that are located adjacent to streams and rivers. They are very

74 important components to both the entire watershed It is the interaction of all species within a community - they are in and the ecosystems that are contained which can be either micro-communities or macro-com­ within. munities.

It is that area adjacent to any water body or stream Ecosystem is an area with similar biota or plant and that receives more than normal moisture through animal life relating to their environment. runoff from surrounding areas. An ecosystem is an unspecified unit of area where all Area along the drainage that has vegetation different the biotic and abiotic factors interact in such a way as from its surrounding area due to increased water. to maintain a level of stability, sometimes fluctuating A boundary zone between rivers and land. in dynamic equilibrium.

The zone of influence that is affected by the additional An ecosystem is a system and the relationships that moisture that results from adjacent or adjoining the components of the system have with each other. upland, and related aquatic area if present. Ecosystem includes all biota found in your area of A streamsideecos ystem with organisms dependent on interest. streamside processes such as flooding, high water table, etc. The entire assemblage of biomass of a particular unit. The definition depends on the discipline. I would define it in terms of the one 100-year flood event, or A complete cross section of ourenvironment, wildlife, the extent of characteristic riparian vegetation. habitat, and all things that make up our lands.

A riparian area is an environment thatis related to All the plants and animals and microorganisms in an water bodies: creeks, rivers, streams, ponds, lakes, area. All theenvironmental factors in an area and all waterland, and oceans. For plant and animal alike. the relationships between all of these things. An ecosystem is more than the sum of its parts.

It is the interactive system of soil, water, plants, air, and animals within an area. Ecosvstem (definitions by survey participants) All biotic and abiotic components and their interac­ An integrated system formed by the interaction of tions within a watershed area. organisms (including humans) with their abiotic and biotic environment. Interaction of all biological species in a particular area.

Def. 1-the earth and incoming sunlight. Def. 2-much A water system with a broad spectrum of animals. more limited. Interaction of soil, water, air, plants, animals and the Like theterm "economy," ecosystem is a multiscale human factorwith some economic influence. word to describe an association of living organisms and theirphysical environment and their interrelation­ An area that involves interactions among/betweenall ships. living and nonliving things affecting each other.

The interaction of all physical, environmental, and All organisms and surroundings in harmonywith the sociological parameters in a given system. environment.

75 Area that encompasses all biological flora and fauna The interrelated physical and biological processes that (and people), and is influenced by or influences exter­ define the environmental functioning of a system or nal biologicaVenvironmental factors. area of interest.

The biological activity in an area. Ecosystems are defined by their unique characteristics and compositions. A watershed along with the actual It encompasses everything in nature as it works riparian area with their individual components would together. make up what is referred to an ecosystem. It's an area that contains many processes, functions, and provides The entire relationshipbetween plants, animals, air, a multitude of benefits to society as a whole. water, and soil. It is a system of living organisms, including crops and The physical and living resources in a natural setting, livestock, that is capable of being managed forsus­ and interaction of these resources to maintain sustain­ tained production at an economic level, where eco­ ability. nomics must be an important consideration.

The combination of physical and biological elements Ecosystem is all the organisms and their environ­ throughout a watershed. ment.

The entire area that exists considering plant, animals, A web consisting of all living things in a system, both earth, air and human factors. plant and animal.

Could be anything you or I are willing to work with as All the physical, cultural, and biological factors that small as a closed petri dish containing living organ­ influence a system in natural function. isms or as large as the earthwithin the solar system. I think that the main defining characteristics are that A unit of nature including organisms and the physical the living and non-living components of any given environment which exchange matter and energy. ecosystem are interconnected and that change in one component eventually resonates to other components Whatis not an ecosystem? Might be an easier question of the system. to answer.

76 Appendix B. Workshop Attendees

Adam, Myron Bischoff, John Curran, Joel Bernhard, Eisenbraun & Assoc. SDSU Water Resource NRCS 215 Walnut Institute Box 211 Yankton, SD 57078. SDSU, Box 2120 Canton, SD 57013 605-665-8092 Brookings, SD 57007 605-987-2624 605-688-4910 Adamson, James Dean, Don VermillionBasin Water Dist. Bjork, Tim NRCS Rt. 1 Box 53 DENR P.O Box 249 Centerville, SD 57014 523 E. Capitol Ave. Lake Andes, SD 57356 605-563-2303 Pierre, SD 57501 -3181 605-487-7501 605-773-4216 Arens, Vernon Deppe, John Bernhard, Eisenbraun & Assoc. Bortnem, Joan Lower James RC&D 215 Walnut DENR 403 N. Lawler Yankton, SD 57078 523 E. Capital Ave. Mitchell, SD 57311 605-665-8092 Pierre, SD 57501 605-996-1031 605-773-502 1 Ashton, Diane Dieterman, Douglas NRCS Boschee, Roy SDSU, Box 2140 B Box 626 NRCS Brookings, SD 57007 Brookings, SD 57006 P.O. Box 626 605-688-6121 605-692-2344 Brookings, SD 57006 605-692-2344 Driscoll, Dan Baumberger, Rod USGS NRCS Buland, Dave 1608 Mt. View Road 515 9th St. NRCS Rapid City, SD 57702

Federal Bldg., Rm . 239 200 4th St. SW 605-394-1780 RapidCity, SD 57701-2663 Huron, SD 57350-2475 605-343-1643 605-352-1200 Duerre, Kent NRCS Beermann, Kevin Burr, Mike 205 E. Oak NRCS USGS Fed. Bldg.

P.O. Box 374 Rm . 408 Federal Bldg. Sisseton, SD 57262 Vermillion, SD 57069 200 4th St. SW 605-698-7431 605-624-8891 Huron, SD 57350 605-353-7176 Forman, Kurt Benson, Rick USFWS USGS Christianson, Jim Box 247 Rm. 408 Federal Bldg. IADNR Brookings, SD 57006 200 4th St. SW Box 7722 605-697-2500 Huron, SD 57350 Spirit Lake, IA 51360 605-353-7176 712-336- 1714 Fox, Dean Beadle Conservation District Berry, Chuck Clark, Dennis 329 Wisconsin SW, Rm .100 SDSU DENR Huron, SD 57350 Box 2140B 523 E. Capital Ave. 605-352-9350 Brookings, SD 57007 Pierre, SD 57501 605-688-6121 605-773-4216 Frederickson, John Bennett, Main & Frederickson Beteta, William Cooper, Ken 618 State Street Nat'l Park Service US Anny Corps of Engineers Belle Fourche, SD 57717 P.O. Box 591 215 N.17th St. 605-642-3516 O'Neill, NE 68763 Omaha, Ne 68102-4978 402-336-3970 409-991-4575

77 Fredrir.hs, Judy Heilman, Terry Kost, Merle Sanborn Conservation District NRCS NRCS Rt. 2 Box 110 B Box H Norwest Bank Bldg. Artesian, SD 5 7314 Wessington Springs, SD 57382 403 N. Lawler, Suite 200 605-527-2588 605-5389-1391 Mitchell, SD 57301 605-996-1658 Fritz, Fran Herbener, Nyle Beadle Conservation District NRCS Koth, Ron RR 2, Box 235 P.O. Box 416 SDGF&P 3305 W. South St. Iroquois, SD 57353 Parker, SD 57053 Rapid City, SD 57702 605-599-2355 605-297-4410 605-394-2391

Gates, Larry Holtsclaw, Leroy Kuck, Michael MN DNR NRCS NRCS 101 Co. Rd. 81 200 4th St. SW 200 4th St. SW Wabasha, MN 55901 Huron, SD 57350-2475 Huron, SD 57350-2475 612-565-3852 605-352-2475 605-352-1200

George, Dave Isenhart, Thomas Kuck, Pat NRCS Iowa State University Enviromed Box 489 251 Bessey Hall 523 E. Capital Ave. Salem, SD 57058 Dept. of Forestry Pierre, SD 57501 605-425-2483 Ames, IA 50011 605-773-4216 605-294-8056 Gilbertson, Jay Lfirson, Scott E. Dakota Water Dev. District Jarrett, Martin USFWS 307 6th-St. SDGS 304 West Prospect Brookings, SD 57006 Science Center Pierre, SD 57501 605-692-5185 USD 605-224-8693 Vermillion, SD 57069 Gottlob, Curt 605-677-5159 Lebeda, Chuck Americorps NRCS 205 6th Street Johnson, Dale 604 N. Highland Brookings, SD 57006 NRCS Madison, SD 57042 605-692-8464 Rt. 2, Box 279 605-256-2094 Milbank, SD 57252 Hagen, Tony 605-432-5672 Lenocker, Barb Lake Pelican Water Proj . Dist. Spink Conservation District 601 North Broadway Jordan, Shane 25 1/2 6th Ave. West Watertown, SD 57201 Americrops Redfield, SD 57469 605-882-5113 P.O Box 626 605-472-1437 Brookings, SD 57006 Hammond, Richard 605-692-6308 Lewis, Kristi SDGS Science. Center Minnehaha Conservation Vermillion, SD 57069 Keicher, Pat District 605-677-5227 Miner Conservation District 3812 N . CliffAve. Box 396 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Hanssen, Curt Howard, SD 57349 605-336-1527 Big Stone Lake Restor. Proj . 605-772-5343 205 E. Oak, Fed. Bldg. Lindskov, Ken Sisseton, SD 57262-1526 Knapp, Allen USGS 605-698-3923 SD GF&P 1608 Mt. View Road 517 W. 10th St. Rapid City,SD 57702 Hamer, Keith Sioux Falls, SD 57104 605-394-1780 SD Dept. of Ag. 605-339-6621 Div. of Conservation Loof, Jeff 445 E. Capital Ave. Konechne, Dave NRCS Pierre, SD 57501-3185 NRCS P.O. Box 396 605-773-3258 P.O. Box 1258 Howard, SD 57349 Pierre, SD 57501-1258 605-772-5642 605-224-2476

78 Loomis, Todd Naylor, Steve Sando, Steve SDSU Corps of Engineers USGS

Dept. of Wild!. & Fisheries Rm 317, Federal Building Rm . 408 Federal l3ldg. Box 2140 B Pierre, SD 57501 200 4th St. SW Brookings, SD 57007-1696 605-224-8531 Huron, SD 57350 605-688-4788 605-353-7176 Nelson, Martin Loutsch, Dean NRCS Schauer, Ron Americorps 118 E. 2nd Street SD GF&P Box 626 Miller, SD 57362 517 W. 10th St. Brookings, SD 57006 605-853-3812 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 605-692-6308 605-339-6621 Nordquist, Tim Luoma, Kevin NRCS Schmidt, Dave NRCS 710 Main St. NRCS P.O. Box 348 Webster, SD 57274 200 4th St. SW Clear Lake, SD 57226 605-345-4661 Huron, SD 57350-2475 605-874-2202 605-352-1200 Ode, David Madsen, Carl SD GF&P Schneider, Kim USFWS 523 E. Capitol Ave. Lake Kampeska Project Box 247 Pierre, SD 57501 304 5th Ave. SE Brookings, SD 57006 605-773-4227 Watertown, SD 57201 605-697-2500 605-882-1992 Olson, Tim Martin, Tom SD GF&P Schultz, Judi NRCS 523 E. Capitol Ave. NRCS 205 E. Oak St.-Rm. 210 P.O. Box 8 Pierre, SD 57501 Sisseton, SD 57262 Britton, SD 57430 605-773-6208 605-698-7431 605-488-2442 Petersen, Arden Schwanke, Marvin Meester, Ron SD GF&P Pelican Lake Assn. SD GF&P 603 E. 517 W. 10th St. Rt 3, Box 175 8th Ave. Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Watertown, SD 57201 Webster, SD 57274 605-339-6621 605-886-6622 605-345-3381 Quail, Stacy Sieg, Carol Mehlhaf, Dan Lake Campbell\Battle Creek Minnehaha Conservation NRCS 710 Main St. Watershed Project District Webster, SD 57274 205 6th Street 3812 N. CliffAve. 605-345-4661 Brookings, SD 57006 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 605-692-8464 605-336-1527 Milewski, Craig SDSU Reber, Nilo Skadsen, Dennis Wild!. & Fisheries NRCS Day Conservation District Box 2140 B Box 484 RR 1 Box 113 Brookings, SD 57007 Highmore, SD 57345 Lorenville, SD 57239 605-688-4788 605-582-2221 605-486-4759

Miller, Merris Rennolet, Robert Stanley, Lowell Moody Conservation District NRCS Box 401 Beadle Conservation District 202 East 3rd Ave. Menno, SD 57045 239 Wisconsin SW, Rm . 100 Flandreau, SD 57028 605-387-5425 Huron, SD 57350 605-997-2371 605-352-9350 Rugenstein, Seanna Murphey, Duane NRCS Steele, Cindy DENR 205 Sixth Street NRCS 523 E. Capitol Ave. Brookings, SD 57006 200 4th St. SW Pierre, SD 57501 605-692-8464 Huron, SD 57350-2475 605-773-4216 605-352-1200

79 Stefanich, Tim Tschetter, Judy Voss, Rod Sioux Falls-Water Purification Beadle Conservation District NRCS 2100 N. Minnesota 239 Wisconsin SW, Rm.100 Box 374 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Huron, SD 53750 Vermillion, SD 57069 605-339-7025 605-352-9350 605-624-8891 Whimey, Gary Taylor, Ken Van Eeckhout, Gene FEMA NRCS NDGF&P Div. Emergency Mgt. 403 N. Lawler, Suite 200 RR 1 Box 224 500 E. Capital Mitchell, SD 57301 Jamestown, SD 5740 1 Pierre, SD 57501 605-352-1200 70 1-252-4634 605-773-3231

Thelen, Jerry Van Lent, Thomas Williams, Mike Stanley Conservation District SDSU Lake Kampeska Watershed P.O. Box 98 Dept. of Civil Engineers Project Ft. Pierre, SD 57532 Brookings, SD 57007 810 10th Ave. SE #3 605-223-2253 605-688-5618 Watertown, SD 57201 605-886-7523 Tong, Diana Van Ravenswaay, Mark Hand Conservation District Americorps Wilson, Tim 118 E. 2nd Street 520 3rd Ave. Brown-Marshall Cons. District Miller, SD 57362 Brookings, SD 57006 1707 4th Ave. SE, Suite 300 605-853-3812 605-692-6308 Aberdeen, SD 57401 605-225-4229 Top, Brian Vicuna, Connie NRCS NRCS Woolf, Mary Lou 3812 N. CliffAve . 200 4th St. SW NRCS Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Huron, SD 57350-2475 25 1/2 6th Ave. West 605-336- 1527 605-352-1 200 Redfield, SD 57469 605-472-1437 Troelstrup Jr., Nels Vlieger, Steve SDSU NRCS Wyman, Sandy Box 2207 B 1820 N . Kimball NRCS Brookings, SD 57007 Mitchell, SD 57311 Box 626 605-688-5503 605-996-7140 Brookings, SD 57006 605-692-8754

Another ·oldie· with a current message from Natural Resources Conservation Service. STOPPING A BARREL OF TROliBLE �w · 200 80 This publication may be cited as follows:

Milewski, C.L., C.R. Berry, and S. Wyman, eds. 1995. Watershed management workshop forthe James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers. South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station B 720. Brookings- : South Dakota State University.

Chapters may be cited as follows:

Hamer, K.L. 1995. Agronomic management in watersheds. Pp 11-12 in C.M. Milewski, C.R. Berry, and S. Wyman, eds. Watershed management workshop forthe James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers. South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station B 720. Brookings: South Dakota State University.

Published in accordance with an act passed in 1881 by the 14th Legislative Assembly, Dakota Territory, establishing the Dakota Agricultural College and with the act of re-organization passed in 1887 by the 17th Legislative Assembly, which established the Agricultural Experiment Station at South Dakota State University. SDSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opponunity Employer (Male/Female) and offers all benefits, services, education, and employment opponunities without regard for ancestry, age, race, citizenship, i,:olor, creed, religion, gender, disability, national origin, sexual preference, or Vietnam Era veteran status.

This publication reports the results of research only. Mention of a trademark, proprietary product, or vendor does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station and does nor imply its approval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that may also be suitable. SDSU B 720: 550 copies printed at a cost of $3 .10 each. July 1995. AX136