Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

established 1866

January 3, 2008

Melody Zullinger

Executive Director

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs

2426 North Second Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110-1104

Dear Ms. Zullinger:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Conservation Resolution by the Delaware River Shad Fishermen's Association (DRSFA). The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is also concerned about the status of the Delaware River shad population and the progress of the shad restoration efforts on the Lehigh River. Although we agree with much of the resolution, we cannot support the resolution as a whole. Below is our detailed response to each recommendation in the resolution.

1. Commercial bay and recreational fishing harvest and egg-taking be reduced and the ocean intercept moratorium be continued until self-sustaining shad population goals have been met or exceeded. We concur that commercial and recreational harvest of American shad in the Delaware Bay and River should be reduced to protect the stock and prevent recruitment failure. However, we are unclear about what is meant by egg-taking in the context of this resolution. Since 1999, the DRSFA has objected to our taking of shad eggs from the Delaware, but we were recently informed that the DRSFA has withdrawn its objection to our egg collection program and, in fact, wants us to increase egg collection to supplement hatchery production. We remain firmly committed to the use of Delaware River eggs for restoration of shad in the Lehigh and Schuylkill Rivers. We have shown in previous correspondence, fact sheets and public presentations that the number of broodstock used for egg collection is small compared to other sources of mortality. In addition, there is a net gain in shad returning to the Delaware River Basin as a result of our hatchery program and the replenishment stocking that we have conducted in the Delaware River since 2005.

2. Creation of an American Shad Stamp ($ 5) to generate funds. As you know, the creation of a shad stamp will require legislative action, and before I am able to support such a stamp, I will have to seek guidance from the Commission's Board. It should be noted that the other two permits that we have in place, the trout/salmon permit and the Lake Erie permit, have very specific objectives for the monies collected. Trout permit monies go toward the culture of catchable trout and provide a direct and ongoing benefit to those who buy the stamp. Lake Erie permits are used to provide and improve angler access for the very popular steelhead fishery there. In considering whether to support a shad stamp, answers to the following questions will be needed. What would the shad stamp monies be used for? Does the Federation support the use of angler dollars for fish passage or fish passage evaluations on dams owned by the Commonwealth? Under the Fish and Boat Code, dam owners are responsible for providing fish passage and fish passage evaluation. Should shad anglers only bear the burden of solving the fish passage problems created by these dams, or should the general population or corporations that own and reap the benefits from the dams help solve the fish passage issue?

3. Netting, tagging and telemetry shad studies for shad passage evaluation on the Delaware, Lehigh and Schuylkill Rivers and their tributaries. The Commission supports a radio telemetry study to determine the efficiency of the fishways on the Lehigh River and to identify fish passage problems and solutions. We estimate the cost of such a study to be $250,000 — 300,000. We have been trying to identify a source for the money needed to conduct such a study. Once the study is completed, additional funds will be required to initiate corrective action.

4. Establishment of a "Shad in Schools" program to connect young people at all school levels to Shad Restoration like the highly successful "Schools in Schools" Potomac River Basin program. The Commission strongly believes it is important to engage school students in building an understanding of the biology, ecology, history and current issues facing American shad and other migratory fish. The Commission, in its partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, has focused its efforts on a broad approach that does not impose the financial and technical limitations such as a classroom aquarium-based program does. That is, the Commission has developed fisheries curriculum and a teacher-training program that enables all educators to teach concepts, such as anadromous fish restoration. The opportunity is not limited to those in a position to set up and maintain the rearing equipment. To date, the Commission has provided such curriculum materials and teacher training to nearly 1000 teachers across the state. The Commission is currently working with DRSFA to build a partnership in the watershed that will result in more teachers and their students being engaged in these types of educational endeavors. This includes those able to raise shad with the support offered by DRSFA. In addition, the Commission believes it is equally, if not more, important to engage the entire community on this topic and not focus just on school students. We strongly encourage DRSFA and the Federation to work with us on larger outreach efforts.

5. Immediate re-establishment of spawning shad goals for self-sustaining populations by 2010. The goal for the Delaware River is a self-sustaining population of 750,000 American shad. This goal was set by the Delaware Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative many years ago and has not changed. It is our understanding that the Cooperative is planning to revise the management plan in the near future. Unless and until the Cooperative changes its goal, Pennsylvania will continue to support a shad population goal of 750,000.

6. Removal of Easton, Chain, Allentown and Cementon dams on the Lehigh River and their replacement with pumping stations similar to the successful pumping station furnishing water for the Riegelsville-New Hope stretch of the canal. The Commission supports the removal of these dams. Indeed, the Commission's recently approved Lehigh River Management Plan identifies dam removals as the best option for shad restoration on the river.

7. Improvement of attraction flows for successful shad passage at Easton, Chain, Allentown and Cementon dams on the Lehigh River until the dams preventing shad passage are removed. The Commission does not have expertise in the area of fishway engineering. We rely on the expertise of professional, experienced engineers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

8. Increased shad fry releases for at least a five-year period until 2012. The Commission does not see a need to increase fry releases at this time. With regard to the Delaware, the recently completed ASMFC stock assessment concluded that the decline in the Delaware shad population is due to factors in the ocean. There was no evidence of recruitment failure in the Delaware. Stocking more shad fry in the Delaware would not likely result in more returning adults and would not be the best use of limited resources. On the Lehigh, poor fishway performance is slowing the recovery. Until we can improve fish passage, more fry stocking would not be prudent. The most effective use of time and money on the Lehigh is to improve fish passage.

9. Re-allocation of resources and re-emphasis to the Delaware River Basin Shad Restoration Plan to include a full-time Fisheries Coordinator (PFBC) to work closely with the Delaware River Fish and Wildlife Cooperative. The Commission has made public its plans to hire river biologists for the three major river basins in the state. The Delaware River biologist will be heavily involved in American shad and other migratory fish issues.

10. Transfer of seined shad at the base of Easton and Chain Dams on the Lehigh River in tanks with aerators, to above the Allentown and Cementon dams until the Lehigh River dams are removed or the attraction flows at the fish passage facilities at the Allentown, Chain and Easton dams are satisfactorily established. Trap and transfer of adult shad was used extensively in the Susquehanna River and in rivers in New England. While trap and transfer showed some success in the production of juvenile American shad, it is a very expensive undertaking. We believe that stocking of hatchery fry is a better use of the limited funds at our disposal.

11. Reduction of walleye and muskellunge fry and fingerling stocking in the Lehigh River below Allentown. The Commission officially outlined its walleye and muskellunge stocking programs through at least 2012 as contained in the 2007 Lehigh River Fisheries Management Plan (http://www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2007/lehigh_fmj3lan.htm). Public comment was sought during the developmental phase of the plan via two venues, a public meeting held on 12 April 2007 (Appendix D) and written comments via letters or email (Appendix E). At least one angler present at the public meeting indicated that he fishes for walleye and muskellunge, primarily in the Allentown/Bethlehem area. The only area of concern with stocking walleye fry and muskellunge fingerlings expressed at the public meeting was from a trout standpoint in regards to Sections 7 (Sandy Run down river 29.1 miles to the Remnant Dam at Palmerton) and 8 (Remnant Dam at Palmerton down river 13.7 miles to the Northampton Dam). Mr. George Magaro, Sr., DRSFA's president, spoke on behalf of the Association but did not voice concerns regarding the stocking of walleye or muskellunge in the river. In a letter dated 26 April 2007, the DRSFA requested that the Commission take action on Item 4 that stated, "Consideration of a reduction in Lehigh River walleye and muskellunge stocking." There was no region of river specified, nor any explicit reason cited for the request to reduce stocking. Stockings of both species will be evaluated per the 2007 Lehigh River Fisheries Management Plan. River sections will be assessed with regard to the continuation of stocking. Currently, there are three river sections that are stocked with walleye fry or walleye fry/muskellunge fingerling. Sections 7 and 8 received only walleye; and Section 9 (Northampton Dam down river 24.0 miles to its confluence with the Delaware River) is stocked with walleye and muskellunge.

The Commission is currently reviewing its statewide muskellunge and walleye stocking programs and has conducted a series of muskellunge workshops with stakeholders (musky anglers, organized musky groups, and other interested parties) and an online angler survey. No organized shad group or anglers provided comments. Waters were identified across the state for possible removal from the stocking program in part based on reported low use via angler responses. Thus, beginning in 2007, stocking was terminated in Section 8 of the Lehigh River. The workshop participants and those that participated in an online survey did indicate a targeted fishery exists in Section 9, which flows through the Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton area, and thus, stocking was continued. The statewide walleye stocking program is also under review, and beginning in 2008, the stocking of walleye fry in rivers will be suspended for at least one year to evaluate the presence of wild reproduction. The DRSFA's area of concern with regard to the stocking of both species, as stated in their proposed resolution, is the river reach downstream of Allentown (Section 9). This section contains three dams with fish passage facilities (Easton (River Mile (RM) 0.0); Chain Dam (RM 3.0), and Hamilton Street Dam (RM 17.0). These devices allow for relatively free movement of fish between the Lehigh and Delaware rivers and within the lower 24 miles of the Lehigh River. Walleye and muskellunge fingerlings are annually stocked by Pennsylvania in the Delaware River, and periodically by the state of New Jersey. Both species have been annually documented via video monitoring entering the Easton Dam and Chain Dam fishways. The Commission has annually stocked both species in each river system since at least 1985. These stockings apparently did not affect the rebuilding of the Delaware shad population in the late 1980s to early 1990s, nor did they most likely contribute to its decline. As noted earlier, there is no evidence of American shad recruitment failure in the Delaware River system, and we believe that factors outside of the river confines are affecting the Delaware River basin run. Furthermore, angling use and interest regarding the Lehigh River is on the rise due to increased public access. For years, safe access to the river for both shore and boat anglers was very limited. However, recently, the river is becoming more accessible and attracting a broader base of anglers with diverse angling interests and expectations. The Commission, through its stocking programs that also include American shad, has been preparing to meet these challenges and opportunities.

12. Increase the striped bass and other predator possession limits and lower size limits until self-sustaining spawning shad populations are established. There is no evidence that Delaware River/Estuary striped bass are limiting the abundance of American shad in the Delaware River Basin. If there were a striped bass impact, the most likely impact would be on young-of-the-year (YOY) shad since the juvenile striped bass are present in very large numbers in comparison to the adult striped bass. Juvenile striped bass are present throughout the time period and most of the geographical range in which YOY shad utilize the Delaware as nursery water. In contrast, the vast majority of adult striped bass leave the system after spawning in April and May. Shad reproduction, as documented by New Jersey's YOY seining index, has been very successful despite the presence of the recently restored (1997) striped bass population. In fact, the YOY shad index in 2007 was the second highest in the 29 year shad YOY time series, a time series which includes the period (late 1970's and early 1980's) when the striped bass population was greatly depressed. When adult striped bass are present, there is no evidence that they focus on American shad as a forage species, nor would that be expected. Numerous other striped bass forage species are present to deflect or dilute predation on American shad. These species include, but are not limited to, blueback herring, alewife, American eel, gizzard shad, hickory shad, white suckers, and white perch.

13. Recommend that Governor Rendell (PA) contact Governor Corzine (NJ), Governor Spitzer (NY) and Governor Minner (DE) to obtain endorsement of the Suggested Delaware River Basin Shad Restoration Plan so that the 20 million+ people that live within an hour and a half of the Delaware River Basin can enjoy its significant benefits today and in the future.

Through their respective agencies, the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware participate in the Delaware River Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

In closing, it is important to note that Commission staff have attended and presented information on most of the issues raised in the resolution at DRSFA meetings on several occasions and have responded in previous letters. Shad conservation and management in the Delaware and Lehigh Rivers will be discussed in detail at the Lehigh Valley Watershed Conference and Shad Symposium to be held on March 28, 2008 at the Holiday Inn in Fogelsville. Most of the points raised in the DRSFA resolution will be on the conference agenda, which is nearly finalized. Attendees and the DRSFA will have opportunities to hear presentations, talk to staff of multiple agencies and interact during a panel discussion. Perhaps, this forum will provide additional insights into these issues and satisfy the DRSFA as to the steps already being taken and those that need to occur to meet its expectations towards shad conservation and management.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this resolution. We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the Federation to improve Pennsylvania's fisheries.

Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director

Additional Comments on Shad Resolution:

This is a letter of support for the Suggested Delaware River Basin Shad Restoration Plan. I would like you to know that I support this plan and the people behind it, whole-heartedly. I know them as responsible and caring individuals, who deserve my support.

Thank You,

Bill McWha

American Shad Passage Consultant

I am writing to let you know that I support the Delaware River Basin Shad Fishermen's Association Shad Restoration Plan, in particular the element to establish a "Schools in Schools" program modelled on the one we have on the Potomac River. I am a biologist who has been leading the American shad restoration effort in the Potomac River since 1995. I am happy to report that the Potomac's shad population is increasing, but unfortunately it is an exception, for as you likely know, most shad populations from Maine to Florida are at alarmingly low numbers and many continue to decline. The Schools in Schools program which we have been running since 1996 has been very instrumental in the Potomac's shad recovery and in engaging the public. Over the years we have involved dozens of schools, hundreds of volunteers, and many thousands of students and their families. Nothing beats having these young people contributing by hatching and raising shad fry in their classrooms and then releasing them into the river to help augment the shad population.

I have had the pleasure over the past year to have worked closely with both John Berry and George Magaro of the Delaware River Shad Fishermen's Association on this educational element of their plan. Last spring they both came and volunteered on the Potomac shad restoration project. They were able to see first-hand how we incorporate students in the project, how the tanks are set up, and how the teachers use this as a tool to educate far beyond the importance of the American shad. I am confident that they will also have a successful program. Please support their effort. You will not be sorry. Indeed, I expect that you will be delighted.

As evidence of the program's effectiveness, a book on the project entitled "Let the River Run Silver Again," by Sandy Burk, was awarded the Isaak Walton Leagues Conservation Book of the Year for 2005 and the Green Earth Book Award for 2006. In 2007, it became part of the National Science Teachers Association's "Recommends" program. NSTA's panel of outstanding science educators recommends this book as "one of the best available supplements for science teaching." A similar program for the Delaware should engage and delight students and teachers from there as well.

Although my direct knowledge of other elements for the Delaware River Shad Plan is more limited, I also support the plan's reduction in commercial and recreational harvests, the creation of the American Shad Stamp, improving fish passage and increasing the numbers of fry released, for these actions also make sense.

It might sound odd, but I am endorsing this plan because I believe it will be good for the Potomac River's shad population. American shad from all of the east coast's rivers migrate together up and down the east coast, no single population can really do well until they are all robust. This is because the shad is a major prey species and if only a few populations are doing well, they are essentially the only shad in the pantry and are therefore preyed upon heavily, inhibiting their full recovery. The Potomac's shad population will not rebound as it should on its own, it needs the recovery of other shad populations such as the Delaware River's.

I look forward to the Delaware River's American shad recovery. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jim Cummins

The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Rockville, MD 20850