ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND

REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

FOR A

FINAL RULE

TO IMPROVE MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT

OF BILLFISH AND SWORDFISH RECREATIONAL FISHERIES

October 2002

United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Highly Migratory Species Management Division

Final Rule to Implement Regulatory Measures to Improve Monitoring and Management of Billfish and Swordfish Recreational Fisheries

Final Actions: Implement a mandatory recreational landings reporting system for Atlantic billfish and swordfish and implement a recreational retention limit for North Atlantic swordfish.

Type of statement: Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)

For further information:  

Christopher Rogers
Highly Migratory Species Management Division
Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1)
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
(301) 713-2347

Abstract: In November 2000, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) developed a two-phase rebuilding program for overfished stocks of Atlantic blue and white marlin. In Phase I of the rebuilding program, the United States must limit its recreational landings to 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin, combined, on an annual basis for 2001 and 2002. This final rule implements a mandatory landings reporting system to improve monitoring of recreational fisheries for Atlantic blue and white marlin and ensure compliance with Phase I of the 2000 ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan. The United States also has an ongoing ICCAT commitment to monitor and account for recreational North Atlantic swordfish and west Atlantic sailfish landings. Therefore, North Atlantic swordfish and west Atlantic sailfish recreational landings are also included in the mandatory reporting landings system.

In consideration of recent increases in effort in the recreational swordfish fishery along the U.S. East Coast, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is implementing a swordfish recreational retention limit to avoid undue increases in mortality levels for this overfished resource. Implementing a retention limit at the initial phase of this growing fishery will help prevent incentive for illegal sale of recreational landed swordfish, establish long-term stability within the recreational swordfish fishery, as well as ensure that the North Atlantic swordfish stock continues to rebuild and that the accrued conservation benefits from recent management measures, such as the pelagic longline closures in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, are not compromised.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background 1

1.3 Objectives 3

2.0. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 3

2.1 Compliance with ICCAT Recommendation to Limit Annual U.S. Recreational Landings to 250 Atlantic Blue and White Marlin 3

2.2 Monitoring Atlantic Blue and White Marlin, West Atlantic Sailfish and North Atlantic Swordfish 4

2.3 Regulation for North Atlantic Swordfish Recreational Angling 5

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5

3.1 Atlantic Billfish and Swordfish 5

3.2 Non-Target Finfish and Protected Species 6

3.3 Description of the Human Environment 7

4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 11

4.1 Compliance with ICCAT Recommendation to Limit Annual U.S. Recreational Landings to 250 Atlantic Blue and White Marlin 11

4.2. Monitoring of Atlantic Billfish and North Atlantic Swordfish Recreational Landings 17

4.3 Recreational Angling Regulations for North Atlantic Swordfish 21

4.4 Impacts on Other Finfish Species 24

4.5 Impacts to Protected Species 24

4.6 Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 24

4.7 Mitigating Measures 25

4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 25

4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 26

4.10 Environmental Justice Considerations 26

5.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 26

6.0. REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW (Executive Order 12866) 27

6.1 Identification and Analysis of the Problem 27

6.2 Description of the Management Objectives 27

6.3 Evaluating the Economic Importance of a Fishery 27

6.4 Economic Importance of the Recreational Billfish and Swordfish Fisheries 28

6.5 Economic Effects on the Recreational Billfish and Swordfish Fisheries 29

6.6 Summary of Net Benefits and Costs 29

7.0 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT 31

8.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS - PAPER REDUCTION ACT 33

9.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS 33

10.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED IN FORMULATING THE PROPOSED RULE 33

11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 33

12.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 34

13.0 REFERENCES 38

14.0 APPENDIX: 2000 ICCAT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ATLANTIC BLUE AND WHITE MARLIN 39

1.0. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction

Atlantic blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), Atlantic white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus), and west Atlantic sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) are managed by the United States under Amendment One to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish (Billfish Amendment), while North Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). Both management plans are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635 issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) prepared Environmental Impact Statements for both FMPs, and alternatives considered in this action are consistent with those documents. Additionally, Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, west Atlantic sailfish, and North Atlantic swordfish are managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), of which the United States is a member. The Secretary of Commerce has the authority under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) to issue regulations to implement ICCAT recommendations.

1.2 Background

In 1997, NOAA Fisheries listed Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin and North Atlantic swordfish as overfished. The Billfish Amendment and the HMS FMP were implemented in 1999 to meet mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for overfished fishery resources. During 1997, ICCAT made several recommendations to recover billfish resources throughout the Atlantic Ocean, including reduction of Atlantic blue and white marlin landings by at least 25 percent from 1996 levels, starting in 1998, to be accomplished by 1999. A 1998 ICCAT recommendation extended the effective period of the landing reductions through 2000. A rebuilding plan for North Atlantic swordfish was developed and adopted by ICCAT in 1999. At the November 2000 annual meeting, ICCAT adopted additional recommendations to develop a two-phased rebuilding plan for Atlantic blue and white marlin (Appendix). The impetus for producing a strong rebuilding strategy for Atlantic blue and white marlin was founded on the results of the most recent stock assessments completed by ICCAT's Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS), which indicated that marlin stocks continue to be overfished.

On May 28, 1999 (64 FR 29090), NOAA Fisheries increased minimum size limits to decrease billfish landings. Several international actions, such as setting quotas and mandating release of all live blue and white marlins, have also been implemented domestically to address overfishing concerns. In September 2001, NOAA Fisheries received a petition filed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to list white marlin as endangered or threatened throughout its range and to designate critical habitat. After conducting a comprehensive review of the status of the species, NOAA Fisheries determined in September 2002, that, while Atlantic white marlin had declined from historical levels, the stock was not at a level that warranted listing under the ESA.

Phase I of the ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan requires that countries (other than the United States) capturing marlins in commercial fisheries reduce white marlin landings from pelagic longline and purse seine fisheries by 67 percent and blue marlin landings by 50 percent from 1999 levels; the United States has prohibited commercial retention of billfish since implementation of the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP. For ICCAT members other than the United States, the plan also requires the release of all live marlins taken as bycatch in commercial fisheries, but does provide an allowance for landing of fish unavoidably killed provided that they are not sold. For its part of the rebuilding program, the United States agreed to maintain regulations that prohibit retention of marlins by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen, and continue monitoring of billfish tournaments through scientific observer coverage of at least 5 percent initially, with an objective of 10 percent coverage by 2002. The United States currently exceeds these observer requirements by requiring that all tournaments register with NOAA Fisheries and that all billfish tournaments be selected for reporting. The United States also agreed to limit annual landings by U.S. recreational fishermen to 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin, combined, for 2001 and 2002. A key element in complying with this portion of Phase I of the Atlantic blue and white marlin rebuilding plan is to develop a comprehensive monitoring program for all recreational landings of marlin, particularly outside of fishing tournaments which are currently monitored through the Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS). Billfish landings outside of tournaments are rarely encountered by standardized recreational fishing surveys such as the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS) and the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS). Landings by U.S. vessels outside the U.S. EEZ are also not regularly monitored.

The Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel (HMS AP) addressed the enhancement of Atlantic billfish monitoring, as well as the issue of the expanding U.S. recreational swordfish fishery during its 2001 annual meeting. The HMS AP expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the monitoring provided by the current NOAA Fisheries programs for both Atlantic marlin and swordfish. As noted for Atlantic marlin, existing survey strategies generally do not identify landings of swordfish which anecdotally appear to be frequent. It is vital to develop a mechanism to monitor recreational landings which are counted against the Incidental swordfish quota. In 2002, the HMS AP discussed monitoring of the U.S. recreational billfish fishery, focusing on potential landings tag programs similar to those in place for the recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in North Carolina and Maryland, and a call-in requirement.

With regard to swordfish, the HMS AP indicated that additional management measures should be considered to avoid an unchecked expansion within the re-emerging recreational swordfish fishery and remove any incentive for illegal sales of recreationally landed swordfish. The recreational swordfish fishery in the North Atlantic Ocean has been expanding in recent years. Fishermen typically fish off the east coast of Florida and off the coasts of New Jersey and New York. Initially recreational swordfish landings occurred overnight during yellowfin tuna trips. However, this appears to have evolved into a directed fishery year-round off Florida and during the summer months off New Jersey and New York. In 2002, the HMS AP discussed retention limits, monitoring quotas for the recreational fishery, and illegal sales of recreationally landed swordfish. While many recreationally caught swordfish are released alive, there have been reports that their feeding behavior leads to foul-hooking, which may result in sufficient physical damage to impair recovery and death. With the implementation of the ICCAT North Atlantic swordfish rebuilding program and the recent closure of nursery waters off the east coast of Florida to pelagic longline fishing (August 1, 2000, 65 FR 47214; February 5, 2001, 66 FR 8903), further increases in recreational landings of swordfish, particularly juveniles, is likely occur along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Without expanding monitoring efforts, the extent and magnitude of the potential increases in recreational landings will not be known.

1.3 Objectives

The objectives of this final rule are to comply with Phase I of the ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan; improve recreational landings data for west Atlantic sailfish; and conserve, manage and better monitor the recreational North Atlantic swordfish fishery against the incidental quota as follows:

• •Maintain an annual recreational landings limit of 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin combined during 2001 and 2002.
• •Implement a monitoring system for non-tournament reported recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin, west Atlantic sailfish and North Atlantic swordfish.
• •Prevent the illegal sale of recreationally landed North Atlantic swordfish.
• •Manage the appropriate redevelopment of the recreational North Atlantic swordfish fishery to provide long-term stability within the recreational swordfish fishery.

2.0. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Compliance with ICCAT Recommendation to Limit Annual U.S. Recreational Landings to 250 Atlantic Blue and White Marlin

Preferred Alternative: Status Quo Atlantic Marlin Minimum Size Limits (No Action)

The status quo is the preferred alternative for complying with the ICCAT 250 marlin-limit. This alternative would maintain the current minimum size limits (Atlantic blue marlin - 99 inches LJFL; Atlantic white marlin - 66 inches LJFL).

Not Selected: Increase the Minimum Size Limits of Atlantic Blue Marlin to 105 Inches LJFL and Atlantic White Marlin to 68 Inches LJFL

This alternative would increase the minimum size of Atlantic blue marlin from 99 inches to 105 inches and increase the minimum size of Atlantic white marlin from 66 inches to 68 inches.

Not Selected: Allocation of 250 Atlantic Marlin Landing Tags

This alternative is based on creating a landing tag system as part of an overall program to improve monitoring of recreational landings of Atlantic marlin. The Atlantic marlin fishery would be closed upon submission of the 250 landing tags.

2.2 Monitoring Atlantic Blue and White Marlin, West Atlantic Sailfish and North Atlantic Swordfish

Preferred Alternative: Telephone System for Reporting Recreational Landings of Atlantic Billfish and North Atlantic Swordfish in Conjunction With a State Level Landings Card/Tag System

All recreational, non-tournament landings of Atlantic billfish (blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish) or North Atlantic swordfish by U.S. citizens would be required to be reported via a toll-free telephone line (1-800-894-5528). A pilot program for assessing landings by cards/tags will be developed in cooperation with the states of North Carolina and Maryland.

Not Selected: Require Use of Landing Tags to Monitor Atlantic Marlin and North Atlantic Swordfish Recreational Landings

The purpose of landing tags would be to provide a count of every Atlantic marlin (outside of a registered fishing tournament) and North Atlantic swordfish landed by U.S. recreational anglers. This alternative would allow NOAA Fisheries to more closely monitor the actual number of marlin and swordfish landed by individual recreational fishermen, as well as provide valuable biological information. Under this alternative, there is no limit to the amount of available tags and there is no intent to close the fishery.

Not Selected: Status Quo Recreational Monitoring of Atlantic Marlin (No Action)

This alternative would limit recreational monitoring to the RBS and the MRFSS.

Not Selected: Require an HMS Recreational Fishing Permit

This alternative would require a recreational fishing permit for all vessels fishing for HMS.

2.3 Regulation for North Atlantic Swordfish Recreational Angling

Preferred Alternative: Implement a Recreational Retention Limit of One Swordfish Per Person, Up to Three per Vessel, Per Trip

This action would establish a recreational retention limit of one North Atlantic swordfish per person, up to three fish per vessel, per trip, which reflects a change from the proposed rule which provided for a one fish per vessel per trip limit. The retention limit would apply to all private vessels and vessels with an HMS charter/headboat (CHB) permit.

Not Selected: Status Quo Recreational Swordfish Retention Restrictions (No Action)

Under this alternative, only current HMS regulations (minimum size limit of 47 inches LJFL and the Incidental Catch quota) would apply to restrict recreational landings of swordfish.

In addition to these actions, NOAA Fisheries will promote, via an outreach program, the voluntary use of circle hooks versus the "J"-style hooks commonly used within the recreational swordfish fishery.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Atlantic Billfish and Swordfish

A summary of the life history information for Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish is provided in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a), HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999b), and the 2001 HMS Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) report (NMFS, 2001). All four species are overfished and overfishing continues internationally. The 2002 HMS SAFE report (NMFS, 2002a) includes the latest stock assessment data, recommendations, and resolutions from the ICCAT and its Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) through December 2001.

The ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan, negotiated during the November 2000 annual meeting in response to the July 2000 SCRS assessment, indicated that Atlantic blue marlin stocks are about 40 percent of the level needed to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY). While this statement appears to be more optimistic than the 1996 assessment where biomass levels were projected to be at 24 percent of MSY, relative Atlantic-wide blue marlin fishing mortality rates (F/F_MSY) have increased from 2.87 in 1996 to 4.0 in 2000. The assessment for Atlantic white marlin indicated that the Atlantic stock has been reduced from 23 percent of MSY in 1996 to less than 15 percent of the level needed to achieve MSY in 1999. Relative fishing mortality rates for Atlantic white marlin have also increased from 1.96 to greater than 7.0 during the same years. The 2002 Atlantic white marlin assessment results are similar to those obtained in 2000, and suggest that the total Atlantic stock in 2000 remains overfished and that overfishing continues.

North Atlantic swordfish biomass at the beginning of 1996 was estimated to be 58 percent of the biomass needed to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). In 1999, assessments for North Atlantic swordfish indicated that the decline in biomass has been slowed or arrested (NMFS, 1999b), and the SCRS (2000) estimated the biomass of North Atlantic swordfish to be 65 percent of the biomass needed to produce MSY. Despite gains in biomass, SCRS cautioned that the North Atlantic recovery plan is very sensitive to any over-harvesting. In its preliminary 2002 stock assessment, SCRS found that growth in biomass of North Atlantic swordfish increased from 65 percent of its healthy stock size to 94 percent in just four years (SCRS, 2002). SCRS noted that uncertainties are inherent in the assessment and warned against large catch increases over the current total allowable catch (TAC). With the recent closures in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico to pelagic longline fishing, in part due to the bycatch of small swordfish, there is concern regarding the recent expansion of the recreational swordfish fishery. While the preliminary 2002 SCRS assessment reflects growth in biomass, swordfish continue to be overfished. Increased pressure from an expanding recreational fishery may potentially negate conservation benefits expected from the pelagic longline closures and slow stock recovery.

3.2 Non-Target Finfish and Protected Species

This rulemaking affects recreational fishing activities for Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish. A description of non-target finfish, such as wahoo, dolphin, king mackerel, and some species of sharks (some of which are overfished) caught in the recreational fishery is included in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999). The fishing activities conducted pursuant to the preferred alternatives will not have affect non-target finfish or protected species in any manner not already analyzed because they primarily address reporting requirements and are not expected to alter fishing practices or fishing effort.

At a sub-group meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, NOAA Fisheries and state agency staff discussed the need for collecting information about protected species bycatch in recreational fisheries. The sub-group recommended that agencies should investigate options for quantifying fisheries interactions with recreational gear. The impetus for the recommendation was based on the perception that there may be an increasing problem of interactions (i.e., entanglements) between recreational fishing gear and marine mammals. Although stranding data are preliminary, there is some evidence of protected species entanglements (primarily bottlenose dolphin) with recreational fishing gear (primarily monofilament line and fishing lures). Although neither the states nor NOAA Fisheries have any directed monitoring program to identify recreational fishing interactions with protected species, limited information is collected via the LPS/MRFSS interviews and certain segments of the CHB fleet report by the logbook program. Interactions between recreational anglers and sea birds has also been noted as a potential area of concern. NOAA Fisheries HMS program will investigate enhanced data collection activities through additional logbooks, surveys, and where appropriate, observers.

3.3 Description of the Human Environment

History of the Fishery

Atlantic billfish and swordfish have historically supported important recreational fisheries along the Atlantic coast of the United States, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. The Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) and the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999b) provide a complete review of these recreational fisheries. Atlantic billfish have also historically been landed as incidental catch by foreign and domestic commercial pelagic longline vessels, or in directed recreational and subsistence handline fisheries. Since the majority of marlin fishing mortality in the Atlantic Ocean is part of international commercial pelagic fisheries (see Table 4.1, 2001 HMS SAFE report; NMFS, 2001), billfish catch estimates have risen and fallen with the overall catch estimates for pelagic fisheries. A complete discussion of the historical catch history is provided in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a). North Atlantic swordfish, unlike Atlantic billfish, also support a vital commercial fishery, with a long history in U.S. and international waters. The United States currently receives 29 percent of the North Atlantic swordfish ICCAT quota (for 1999, total North Atlantic swordfish reported catch was 11,914 mt, with U.S. landings totaling 2,908 mt with an additional 494 mt of discards; for 2000, total North Atlantic swordfish reported catch was 11,210 mt, with U.S. landings totaling 2,915 mt with and additional 489 mt of discards).

Current Domestic Fishing Activities and Economic Aspects of the Fishery

Domestic fishing activity directed on Atlantic billfish is limited to recreational fishing. A description of this fishery, including participating user groups, historical descriptions, and social and economic values of the fishery is described in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) and the 2001 and the 2002 SAFE reports (NMFS, 2001; NMFS, 2002). As described below, recreational catches of billfish are difficult to assess because billfish are relatively rare in comparison with other species targeted by marine anglers and there are relatively few billfish fishermen. These characteristics challenge the use of traditional recreational angler surveys for monitoring billfish catches. In addition, billfish-specific landings data are primarily derived from tournament information, thus many landings may still go undetected.

U.S. recreational fisheries activities, including HMS recreational landings, are generally monitored by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS). NOAA Fisheries' ability to monitor billfish landings, as well as recreational swordfish landings, is limited due to the infrequency of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, West Atlantic sailfish, and North Atlantic swordfish landings over a wide geographic range of fishing effort. When landings of species occur as a "rare event," whether due to spatial (Atlantic-wide effort) or temporal (swordfish recreational landings generally occur during nighttime hours) constraints, MRFSS may not provide a robust estimate of recreational fishing activity. NOAA Fisheries addressed the bluefin tuna recreational fishery by developing the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) program, which operates within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) northward of the North Carolina coast, and augmenting it with tagging and call-in systems.

Atlantic billfish are also monitored through the Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS) which began in 1971 in the Gulf of Mexico and was expanded to the U.S. East Coast and U.S. Caribbean in 1972. Since 1992, the RBS data have almost exclusively been derived from recreational billfish tournaments or other recreational HMS species tournaments that have an award category for billfish. Non-tournament data are normally included each year from voluntary reports but these data are not systematically collected. Historically the tournaments sampled by the RBS do not represent a census of all billfish tournaments that included U.S. citizen participants. Therefore, the sampled catch (i.e., boated fish) and effort represent minimum estimates and could not be effectively extrapolated to estimate a total catch. The Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) established a regulatory requirement for billfish tournaments to register with NOAA Fisheries at least four weeks prior to the event to improve on the robustness of the RBS. A partial indication of the impact of the tournament registration requirement may be gleaned from the fact that the number of billfish tournaments reported in 1999 (N=157) was greater than those that reported in 1996 (N=116). While landings reporting for HMS tournaments is becoming more comprehensive, a significant amount of recreational fishing effort for Atlantic HMS, particularly tunas and swordfish, still occurs outside of the tournament context.

Using standardized recreational catch rates from fishing tournaments, Ortiz and Farber (2000) calculated indices of abundance for Atlantic blue and white marlin. They used an index of weight caught per 100 hours of fishing reported through tournament operators and NOAA Fisheries observers through the RBS program. The RBS database included a total of 11,066 records of information for each tournament day surveyed (from a total of 459 tournaments) between 1973 and 1999, including species, disposition (lost, released, tagged, or boated), and morphometric information (size, weight) for billfish that were landed. Ortiz and Farber noted that the average catch rate of blue marlin was 307.5kg/100 hours of fishing effort between 1973 and 1999. In recent years, the mean size of blue marlin reported by recreational tournaments has been in an increasing trend, most likely a reflection of the recent increase in the minimum size limit from 86 inches lower jaw-fork length (LJFL) to 99 inches LJFL. However, using the number of fish caught per 100 hours of fishing metric, they noted that recent catch rates have been below average levels. Catch rates trends in number landed/effort for blue marlin are shown in Figure 1. Likewise, catch trends for white marlin are declining under the number per unit effort analyses by Ortiz and Farber. Since 1985, catch rates have been below the overall mean (Figure 2).

The NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center completed a compilation of recreational landings for Atlantic blue and white marlin for the 1999 fishing year (June 1999 through May 2000) and the 2000 fishing year (June 2000 through May 2001), which are provided in Table 1. From the information provided in this table, annual U.S. recreational landings of Atlantic marlin are below the 250 threshold for both 1999 and 2000 fishing years. The drop off in marlin landings between 1999 and 2000 (Table 1) may partially be due to the increased minimum size limits that were finalized on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 29090). For example, based on information

from the RBS, if the minimum size limit for Atlantic blue marlin had been implemented the entire year for 1999 (calendar year), then landings would have only been 25.47 mt (128 fish) rather than 32.8 mt (177 fish), as noted by Farber and Venizelos (2000).

Table 1. U.S. recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin.

* The U.S. reports ICCAT compliance with the marlin limit based on fishing year estimates.

Although the MRFSS, LPS, and RBS provide some estimate of HMS recreational activities, many landings may still go undetected. Some additional improvement in monitoring of recreational billfish landings will likely occur as the charter/headboat permit, logbook, and observer programs that were developed as part of the HMS FMP and Billfish Amendment are implemented during 2001 and beyond. However, it is unlikely that these programs will be sufficient to adequately address the constraints associated with recreational Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish angling due to the operational behavior of these recreational fisheries; thus, the precision of current landing estimates is a matter of concern. Therefore, some additional monitoring program must be developed to determine the magnitude of landings from private vessels, charter boats and other platforms, both inside the U.S. EEZ and throughout the Atlantic Ocean (range of Atlantic billfish stocks) to comply with the 2000 ICCAT recommendation for Atlantic marlins and for North Atlantic swordfish for quota monitoring responsibilities.

The recreational swordfish fishery in the North Atlantic Ocean has been expanding in recent years, probably due to increased success in catching swordfish leading to more interest in this sport. Fishermen typically fish off the east coast of Florida and off the coasts of New Jersey and New York. In the past, the New York fishery for swordfish has occurred on overnight yellowfin tuna trips. During the day, fishermen targeted tunas, while at night they drift-fished deeper for swordfish. This appears to have evolved into a directed fishery year-round off Florida and during the summer months off New Jersey and New York.

Existing survey strategies do not adequately intercept recreational landings of swordfish because they tend to occur at night. Recreational fishermen have provided anecdotal information to NOAA Fisheries indicating that swordfish landings are occurring with increasing frequency. Under current regulations, these landings are counted against the incidental catch quota. The 2002 SAFE report (NMFS, 2002a) indicated that estimates of recreational landings of swordfish increased from 4.7 mt (10,400 lbs) in 1998 to 21.32 mt (47,000 lbs) in 1999; then decreased to 15.6 (34,400) in 2000. However, data on actual landing levels, as well as economic components associated with this growing fishery, are limited at this time. At its April 2001 annual meeting, the HMS AP expressed concern regarding anecdotal reports of the growth of recreational swordfish landings, particularly along the east coast of Florida, and the possible illegal entry of these fish into the commercial market. The HMS AP, at it April 2002 annual meeting, discussed the need for better statistics on recreationally landed swordfish before any retention limit were imposed.

4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Compliance with ICCAT Recommendation to Limit Annual U.S. Recreational Landings to 250 Atlantic Blue and White Marlin

The success of the ICCAT rebuilding plan is predicated primarily on international cooperation in reducing Atlantic blue and white marlin landings. In fact, the magnitude of required mortality reductions to rebuild these overfished stocks are such that if all sources of U.S. mortalities of Atlantic blue and white marlin were eliminated (i.e., both recreational and commercial), the cumulative impact of the United States current conservation and management actions (e.g., prohibition of commercial retention of Atlantic billfish, extensive time/area closures along U.S. Atlantic coast, gear restrictions) and future efforts would not unilaterally provide sufficient mortality reductions to allow rebuilding under the plan. Therefore, the brunt of the reductions required to rebuild overfished Atlantic blue and white marlin stocks will fall on those countries whose vessels currently contribute the greatest landings. To that end, ICCAT members, not including the United States, will be required to implement a 50 percent reduction in Atlantic blue marlin landings from 1999 levels and a 67 percent reduction in white marlin landings from 1999 levels. Currently, Japan, Chinese-Taipei, Brazil, Cote D'Ivoire, and Venezuela account for over 80 percent of the Atlantic marlin landings. Limiting annual U.S. recreational landings to 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin during 2001 and 2002 is another component of Phase I of the ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan.

Preferred Alternative: Status Quo Atlantic Marlin Landing Restrictions (No Action)

Maintaining the status quo minimum size limits (Atlantic blue marlin - 99 inches LJFL; Atlantic white marlin - 66 inches LJFL) is the selected alternative for ensuring compliance with the 250 marlin limit. Reported marlin landings for 1999 (Table 1; N=213 Atlantic marlin) are below the 250 limit. To more fully assess the effect of the minimum size limit for Atlantic marlin that was enacted in May 1999, if landings of fish below the limits enacted mid-season are removed from the landings for the 1999 calendar year to adjust for mid-year implementation of the minimum size limits, it would yield an "adjusted" total of 164 Atlantic marlin or 128 blue marlin and 36 white marlin, (Farber and Venizelos, 2000). Furthermore, landings information for 2000 of 127 Atlantic marlin landings (Table 1) are well under the 250 annual limit of the 2000 ICCAT recommendation. Although NOAA Fisheries has selected the status quo as the final action, enhanced monitoring is needed. As noted in Section 3 .3 of this EA, recreational billfish landings data are primarily derived from tournaments, thus many landings may go undetected. Additional management measures may be necessary if improved monitoring of non-tournament landings indicates higher than expected U.S. recreational Atlantic blue and white marlin landings.

Ecological Impacts

This preferred alternative would not change the ecological impacts previously analyzed because it maintains the status quo regulations in the U.S. recreational marlin fishery. The current minimum size limits appear to have resulted in a reduction of sufficient magnitude to stay well under the 250 annual limit of the 2000 ICCAT recommendation for the U. S. recreational landings of blue and white marlin (Table 1). As noted above, the cumulative impact of unilateral actions by the United States, without international cooperation, will not be sufficient to effect the Atlantic-wide rebuilding plan.

Economic Impacts

The economic importance and value of the recreational marlin fishery is discussed in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) and the 2001 and 2002 SAFE report (NMFS, 2001; NMFS 2002). Fishermen voluntarily release most of the catches and most of the Big Game Fishing Clubs have an all catch and release format for billfish. Billfish fishing is generally favored by persons with personal incomes that are far above the average U.S. per capita income (Ditton and Stoll, 1998). The value is in the experience of catching a billfish but, during a tournament, the possibility of bringing in "the big one" is essential to the experience. Since recent landings information for Atlantic marlin indicate that, under the status quo, the U.S. landings are within the 250 marlin annual limit, as noted above, compliance with 2000 ICCAT recommendations are being achieved through the size restrictions enacted in 1999. Therefore, the preferred alternative would not alter the existing economic impact on the U.S. recreational marlin fishery.

Social Impacts

The status quo alternative would not have any negative social impacts on the recreational HMS fishing community. Because it is easy to comply, there is nearly unanimous support from the Billfish AP and other groups that represent the billfish fishery for using size limits for limiting catches to the 250 annual limit.

Not Selected: Increase the Minimum Size Limits of Atlantic Blue Marlin to 105 Inches LJFL and Atlantic White Marlin to 68 Inches LJFL

The Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) increased the minimum size limits of Atlantic blue marlin (from 86 inches LJFL to 99 inches LJFL) and Atlantic white marlin (from 62 inches LJFL to 66 inches LJFL) as the primary mechanism to comply with the 1997 and 1998 ICCAT recommendations to reduce Atlantic landings by 25 percent from 1996 levels. Public comments on the initial phase of this rulemaking process indicated a preference for retention limits compared to other management alternatives that restrict recreational landings by U.S. citizens. By further increasing the minimum size limits, this alternative would follow the strategy established in the Billfish Amendment to control recreational landings, resulting in a precautionary measure to ensure that annual recreational landings would not likely exceed 250 marlin in either 2001 or 2002. Increasing the minimum size of Atlantic blue marlin to 105 inches LJFL would potentially reduce blue marlin landings by approximately 40 percent from 1999 levels (Table 2), while a reduction in white marlin landings of over 50 percent would be expected with an increase in the minimum size limit to 68 inches LJFL (Table 3). However, as discussed at the April 2-4, 2001, HMS AP meeting, recent landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin have already been significantly reduced from 1999 levels (40 percent and 78 percent, respectively). Because current minimum size limits maintain the ICCAT 250 marlin limit, and further size increases may have negative social impacts, this alternative is not selected.

Ecological Impacts

Further increasing the minimum size for Atlantic blue (Table 2) and white marlin (Table 3) would cause greater reductions in U.S. recreational landings. Because of the highly migratory nature of these species, a slight local reduction in the numbers of marlin landed will not effect the rebuilding of these stocks. As noted earlier, the cumulative impact of this alternative and other management measures, without international cooperation, would be insufficient to effectuate Atlantic-wide rebuilding of these stocks.

Economic Impacts

The economic importance and value of the recreational marlin fishery is discussed in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) and the 2001 and 2002 SAFE reports (NMFS, 2001; NMFS 2002). The economic impacts of increased minimum size limits are uncertain. However, just as the Billfish Amendment noted when minimum sizes of Atlantic blue and white marlin were increased (13 inches LJFL and 4 inches LJFL, respectively) in 1999, it is not anticipated that further changes would reduce angler participation, or result in a negative economic impact on associated support industries. Evidence supporting this conclusion can be gleaned from the fact that as many, if not more, tournament events are now being held, albeit with lower numbers of marlin landed, than occurred prior to when final regulations increasing the minimum size limits became effective (May 29, 1999; 64 FR 29090). Enforcement costs for this alternative should not increase since size limits already exist under current regulations. However, there would be some short-term increases in management costs associated with communicating new size limits to the recreational fishing community.

Table 2. Expected percent reductions in recreational landings of Atlantic blue marlin from 1999 levels at each respective increase in minimum size (inches LJFL).

* Estimates based on perfect implementation of 99 inch LJFL regulation.

Table 3. Expected percent reductions in recreational landings of Atlantic white marlin from 1999 levels at each respective increase in minimum size (inches LJFL).

Social Impacts

The social impact of an increase in the minimum sizes for Atlantic marlin on various sectors of the recreational fishing industry is uncertain. However, based on responses received on the August 9, 2000, Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR; 65 FR 48671), it is anticipated that any additional increase in size limits may have, when considered in light of other regulatory measures already taken, a negative social impact on U.S. Atlantic marlin anglers. Further increases in Atlantic marlin minimum size were addressed at the April 2-4, 2001, joint HMS/Billfish AP meeting and were generally not well supported. Although an increase in size limits was suggested, particularly for white marlin, most AP members indicated that since tournaments often have larger minimum size limits than currently required by law and a reduced number of tournament-landed marlin (106 blue marlin and 8 white marlin in 2000), further changes in size limits would have diminished effectiveness. Comments received on potential measures in the ANPR, as well as from AP discussions, indicate that recreational marlin anglers voluntarily release a very high percentage of all marlin caught. While they are supportive of conservation measures that resulted from the 1999 Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a), because of their voluntary conservation efforts, such substantial increases in size limits would be perceived as overly restrictive for the recreational fishing community.

Not Selected: Allocation of 250 Atlantic Marlin Landing Tags

This alternative is based on creating a landing tag system as part of an overall program to improve monitoring of recreational landings of Atlantic marlin (see Alternative 1 under Section 4.2). A U.S. citizen fishing anywhere within the management unit (Atlantic Ocean) would be required to affix a landing tag on any Atlantic blue or white marlin upon landing. Under this alternative, there would either be a limit of 250 landing tags provided to U.S. recreational marlin anglers for the Atlantic, or alternatively, no limit on the number of available tags but further recreational landings would be prohibited once 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin landings tags have been submitted for the year. This alternative would not address the need to improve monitoring of the recreational swordfish fishery and imposes an additional burden on billfish tournaments which already register and report. This alternative is not preferred at this time.

Ecological Impacts

Developing a landing tag system for use in monitoring and/or limiting the U.S. recreational Atlantic marlin fishery would allow NOAA Fisheries to enhance its monitoring and facilitate compliance with ICCAT's 250 marlin limit. Because this alternative is not expected to decrease effort or participation in the fishery, it is not expected to have other measurable ecological impacts.

Economic Impacts

The economic importance and value of the recreational marlin fishery is discussed in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) and the 2001 and 2002 SAFE reports (NMFS, 2001; NMFS 2002). Establishing a limit on the absolute number of Atlantic blue and white marlin that can be landed by U.S. recreational anglers through a limit of 250 landing tags or by prohibiting landings once 250 tags have been reported could have negative economic impacts on the recreational marlin industry. Tournaments and charter vessel fishing trips that occur near the end of the fishing year could be disproportionately affected should they be unable to land an Atlantic blue or white marlin that met minimum size requirements. Costs of the tags would be nominal.

Social Impacts

Tournament sponsors, organizers, and participants strongly opposed the use of landing tags to control the number of Atlantic marlin landed by U.S. anglers, whether through limiting the number of tags to 250 or though closure of fishery landings once the 250 threshold has been achieved. If stronger measures are needed in the future to reduce landings, fishery participants view raising the size limit as a more fair and easily applied method than the tagging system. AP members expressed concern that this alternative could have negative social impacts if it created geographic and seasonal biases (e.g., tournaments or anglers desiring to land fish near the end of the fishing year when the potential would be highest for a fishery closure). The AP members also commented that any measure limiting access to recreational landings could lead to negative social consequences resulting from fairness and equity issues relating to allocating a valuable, wide-ranging resource.

Other Alternatives Considered but Rejected

One alternative to ensure that U.S. recreational landings of marlin do not exceed the 250 landings limit would be to prohibit all Atlantic blue and white marlin landings by U.S. recreational anglers outside of fishing tournaments because current monitoring of billfish landings are mainly focused on tournaments; landings data indicate that less than 250 marlin are landed annually during fishing tournaments. NOAA Fisheries also considered allowing only catch-and-release formats for all Atlantic billfish tournaments and a prohibition on any recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin.

Ecological Impacts

These alternatives would enhance monitoring and facilitate compliance with the 250 marlin limit, but have no other measurable ecological impacts.

Economic and Social Impacts

Prohibiting non-tournament landings was considered in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a), but was rejected because of potential economic and social impacts on private vessel owners and the charter vessel industry that provide fishing opportunities for anglers which either do not wish to participate in tournament fishing or who cannot afford entry fees. The alternatives of allowing only catch-and-release for Atlantic billfish tournaments and prohibiting any recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin could lead to negative economic impacts, as discussed in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a). Tournaments requiring landings as part of the criteria used to determine winners and trophy anglers (e.g., for a marlin mount) would be prohibited from landing a Atlantic blue or white marlin, which may reduce angler participation resulting in economic losses to associated businesses.

4.2. Monitoring of Atlantic Billfish and North Atlantic Swordfish Recreational Landings

Preferred Alternative: Telephone System for Reporting Recreational Non-Tournament Landings of Atlantic Billfish and North Atlantic Swordfish

Under this alternative, all recreational non-tournament landings of Atlantic billfish or North Atlantic swordfish landed by U.S. citizens would be required to be reported via a toll-free telephone line (1-800-894-5528). Monitoring of Atlantic billfish (non-tournament) and swordfish recreational landings through a self-reporting method that is easy to use and operative over a wide geographic range would provide a cost-effect mechanism to determine compliance with ICCAT obligations. West Atlantic sailfish are included for mandatory reporting due to the fact that they are generally caught along with Atlantic marlin, there is a need for improved sailfish recreational landings data, and the call-in system will already be established for Atlantic marlin and North Atlantic swordfish landings.

The toll-free call would take less than 5 minutes for each response, including name, contact number, and number, size and species caught. NOAA Fisheries would then call back each reporting angler to obtain specific catch information, as well as provide the angler with a confirmation number that will be used for enforcement purposes. The toll-free call-in system requirement for non-tournament landings would be widely advertised through public outreach with constituent groups, sport fishing magazines, fishing tournaments, Fishery Management Councils, and Billfish Advisory Panel members. It is anticipated that compliance would be high with this requirement based on the conservation ethic and interest in this resource by recreational HMS anglers. This alternative would apply only to non-tournament recreational landings to avoid duplicative reporting by the RBS program. This is the preferred alternative for improving HMS recreational monitoring based on current NOAA Fisheries resources. This alternative is the least burdensome, can be implemented in a timely manner, and is the most cost-effective option available at this time.

Ecological Impacts

This alternative would improve monitoring of recreational Atlantic billfish and swordfish landings outside of registered tournaments, which is necessary for the United States to meet ICCAT obligations and to support conservation of these species. Furthermore, it is particularly vital to initiate a swordfish monitoring program when the U.S. recreational swordfish fishery is beginning to undergo an increase in catch success and angler participation. Additionally, improved monitoring will have some positive, long-term ecological impact, because it will enhance precision of future SCRS stock assessments which are critical to NOAA Fisheries development of conservation and management measures.

Economic Impacts

Recreational encounters with billfish and swordfish are generally rare, and landings are even less frequent (generally 95 to 99 percent of all Atlantic marlin are released), which makes scientifically-based sampling programs difficult to design and expensive to operate. The toll-free HMS recreational landing monitoring call-in system would have minimal economic impact on the recreational community (no cost for the call and likely less than 3 to 5 minutes to report). Administrative costs would also be minimal since the toll-free system is already in place, with some expenditures associated with calling anglers back to obtain catch-specific information and to provide confirmation numbers. Database maintenance would also increase costs to the government. However, an enhancement of recreational monitoring of Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish recreational landings by U.S. anglers is necessary to comply with ICCAT obligations. Furthermore, inadequate monitoring of Atlantic billfish and swordfish could negatively impact international rebuilding programs, which could lead to long-term negative economic benefits based on limited or reduced recreational encounters.

Social Impacts

The call-in monitoring program, because it is minimally time consuming for the participants and does not change fishing practices, is not expected to have any significant social impacts on the U.S. recreational Atlantic billfish or North Atlantic swordfish anglers in the short or long-term.

Not Selected: Require Use of Landing Tags to Monitor Atlantic Marlin and North Atlantic Swordfish Recreational Landings

The challenge of monitoring recreational HMS landings was described in the August 9, 2000, ANPR (65 FR 48671), which included the use of landing tags as one of the potential management alternatives to be considered to improve monitoring of recreational landings of swordfish, as well as marlin outside of tournaments. Although not all comments on the proposed rule addressed landing tags, there was mixed support for developing such a system, with some suggestions that this program would best be accomplished in coordination with state fisheries agencies. Use of landing tags for monitoring of Atlantic marlin was also discussed at the April 2-4, 2001, AP meeting. Due to the expense of implementation and the time constraints imposed by the ICCAT rebuilding plan, this is not the preferred option at this time. However, as an interim solution, NOAA Fisheries is encouraging the states to participate in a landing tag system to augment the phone-in system. Currently, North Carolina and Maryland have agreed to participate in a landing tag program adding billfish to their already existing bluefin tuna tag program.

The purpose of landing tags would be to provide a count of every Atlantic marlin (outside of a registered fishing tournament) and North Atlantic swordfish landed by U.S. recreational anglers. This alternative would allow NOAA Fisheries to more closely monitor the actual number of marlin and swordfish landed by individual recreational fishermen, as well as provide valuable biological information (size frequencies, growth, movement patterns, etc.). The management mechanisms of the marlin landing tag could follow the tarpon program utilized by the State of Florida, or the bluefin tuna tagging programs currently used in Maryland and North Carolina. Any Atlantic marlin or North Atlantic swordfish taken into possession from its management unit for the intent of recreational landing would be required to have a tag attached to the fish. Atlantic marlin landed as part of a registered billfish tournament would be exempt from the tag requirement. The tag would remain with the fish through final processing of the fish (i.e., smoking, filleting, or taxidermy). The number of tags would not be limited, as opposed to the Allocation of 250 Atlantic Marlin Landing Tags Alternative under Section 4.1, and would be readily available to recreational fishermen. Furthermore, the tags would be transferrable as long as reporting requirements are met. NOAA Fisheries would keep a record of the name, address, and number of tags sent to each angler. Included with the tag would be a self-addressed reporting form that would be mailed to NOAA Fisheries. The reporting form would include mandatory information (e.g., name, address, species, location of catch, length, weight), as well as optional data (e.g., sex of fish, manner of fishing). A report would also be submitted to NOAA Fisheries within seven days of the end of the calendar year accounting for all unused tags. Failure to submit required reports would disqualify an individual from receiving tags from NOAA Fisheries in the next calendar year.

Ecological Impacts

Improved monitoring of Atlantic marlin will have some positive, long-term ecological impact, because it will enhance precision of future SCRS stock assessments which are critical to NOAA Fisheries development of conservation and management measures. Monitoring programs would have some ecological impact if landings were far in excess of anticipated levels, requiring additional landing restrictions to further minimize mortality rates.

Economic Impacts

The economic impacts of instituting a landing tags program were addressed in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a). The cost per tag would be nominal, therefore, the short-term economic impacts to recreational anglers of this alternative would be minimal. Administrative and enforcement short and long-term costs would be higher than those for a call-in system. These costs would depend, however, on the program design. As noted earlier, NOAA Fisheries is pursuing a pilot program in cooperation with North Carolina and Maryland to include billfish on their already existing landing tag program for tunas. Information from these pilot programs compared to the information collected by the call-in system implemented in this action will be used in the future to reevaluate this alternative.

Social Impacts

It is difficult to determine the social impacts of requiring a landing tag for Atlantic marlin and swordfish as simply a quantitative method to enumerate recreational landings, and not as a method to restrict or limit landings. Although there was support for this management measure from the Billfish AP during development of the Billfish Amendment and during the April 2001, joint AP meeting, a mixed response was received during the public comment period on the need for improved monitoring in the August 9, 2000, ANPR. In evaluating potential social consequences of a landing tag requirement in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a), a study by Fisher and Ditton (1992) was cited, noting that nearly 75 percent of recreational anglers were either neutral or supportive of a billfish "stamp" or tag with no strong opposition.

Not Selected: Status Quo Recreational Monitoring of Atlantic Billfish and Swordfish (No Action)

This alternative is not preferred because current programs are not designed for the census level of monitoring required to ensure that all non-tournament billfish catches are being recorded in compliance with the 2000 ICCAT recommendation. The rare nature of Atlantic blue and white marlin landings make established recreational statistical sampling programs such as the MRFSS and LPS are less precise for the level of monitoring required. Atlantic marlin and sailfish are monitored through the RBS program which provides tournament landings information, but does not systematically collect non-tournament landings data.

Swordfish are generally landed at night and are not encountered by intercept interviews. In addition, swordfish and Atlantic blue and white marlin are landed outside the survey areas covered by current charter/headboat reporting programs (permits, logbooks, and observers). The ICCAT recommendation applies to U.S. recreational fishing activities throughout the management unit of these species. Therefore, the status quo alternative for monitoring recreational landings is not preferred at this time.

Ecological Impacts

The ecological impacts of the status quo monitoring alternative are negligible, because landings have been decreasing since the enactment of Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999) and previous management measures. Maintaining the status quo may result in adverse long-term impacts, because it would not provide for improved monitoring and enhanced precision of future SCRS stock assessments, which are critical to NOAA Fisheries development of conservation and management measures.

Economic Impacts

Negative economic impacts may occur over the long-term if large numbers of marlin and swordfish landings are not being accounted for by current monitoring and restrictive management measures must be implemented in the future. No additional economic impacts associated with status quo alternative would be expected, aside from those expenditures incurred from the current monitoring system.

Social Impacts

Because the status quo alternative does not change management rules or fishing practices, its continuance would not be expected to have any significant social impacts on the U.S. recreational Atlantic blue and white marlin or North Atlantic swordfish anglers in the short or long-term.

Not Selected: Institute an HMS Recreational Fishing Permit

This alternative was considered during development of the HMS FMP and Billfish Amendment, but was rejected at that time. Instead, NOAA Fisheries is implementing an expansion of the already existing tuna vessel permit to a more comprehensive HMS recreational fishing vessel permit in the context of a separate rulemaking. This alternative has been analyzed under that separate rulemaking process.

4.3 Recreational Angling Regulations for North Atlantic Swordfish

Preferred Alternative: Implement a Recreational Retention Limit of One Swordfish Per Person, Up to Three Per Vessel, Per Trip

This preferred alternative would establish a one swordfish per person, up to three swordfish per vessel, per trip retention limit for recreational North Atlantic swordfish landings, which reflects a change from the proposed rule that set forth a one fish per vessel per trip limit. The HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999b) rejected an alternative to establish a retention limit for recreational harvest of swordfish but included this option under the framework provisions (Section 3.10), noting that "should recreational catch rates increase and participation as well, retention limits may be useful in the future to slow catch rates." The purpose of this retention limit is to prevent unrestricted expansion of the fishery, remove an incentive for the sale of recreationally landed swordfish, better reflect current catch patterns, and establish long-term stability within this re-emerging fishery.

At its April 2-4, 2001, meeting, the joint HMS and Billfish AP supported establishment of a swordfish recreational retention limit. Many recreational anglers expressed support for a retention limit during the comment period on the proposed rule, but indicated that a one fish per vessel limit might negatively impact CHB vessels, which carry multiple passengers. NOAA Fisheries increased the retention limit to a maximum of three fish per vessel per trip in part in response to these concerns to better reflect recent catch patterns and minimize potential impacts on CHB vessels.

Ecological Impacts

This alternative will likely have positive direct and cumulative ecological impacts. As noted in section 3.3 of this EA, there has been a recent expansion of the recreational swordfish fishery off the east coast of Florida and New Jersey and New York coasts. Increased pressure from an expanding, unrestricted fishery could greatly increase juvenile swordfish mortality, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the swordfish rebuilding plan and bycatch reduction measures, 65 FR 47214 (August 1, 2000), and slowing stock recovery. The retention limit under this alternative will prevent uncontrolled fishery expansion, foster stability in the fishery, and ensure that conservation benefits from prior management actions are not lost.

NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any substantial change in impacts to swordfish as a result of modifying the proposed rule to provide for a one fish per person, up to three per vessel, per trip, limit. Because a three fish limit should better reflect current catch patterns, it is unlikely to result in more effort, participation, and potential interactions with non-target fish and protected species than the proposed one fish per vessel limit. This alternative would not result in significantly greater amounts of swordfish landings, as not all fishing trips are successful nor are they expected, on average, to reach the three fish limit. The swordfish fishery is a rare event fishery characterized by clustered catch rates in which several trips may result in no swordfish catches and a few trips may catch several swordfish. NOAA Fisheries anticipates no adverse cumulative impact from this alternative and other management measures as the Incidental North Atlantic swordfish quota has never been filled.

Economic and Social Impacts

Implementing this retention limit should not have any significant economic or social impacts on recreational anglers or associated support industries. The fishery is currently experiencing an increase in angler participation and success, with only limited regulatory constraints on fishing activities (minimum size limit; quota; no sale, barter, or trade). As swordfish become increasingly available due to international and domestic fishery management measures, this retention limit will help prevent uncontrolled expansion and minimize economic and social instability while this recreational fishery is revitalized. This alternative also minimizes any potential social impacts because it establishes a possession limit with angler input during the initial rebuilding of the fishery, as opposed to imposing reactionary measures on a fully expanded recreational fishery.

Based on the large size of recreationally landed swordfish (50-200+ pounds), which cannot be sold commercially, NOAA Fisheries considers a one fish per person, up to three per vessel, per trip limit to be reasonable for swordfish for personal consumption, even on vessels carrying more than one angler. Because not every fishing trip is successful, on average, the three fish limit is not expected to be reached. In fact, U.S. fishermen have never filled the ICCAT incidental swordfish quotas. Thus, NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate that the retention limit of three fish per vessel will have significant, adverse economic or social impacts.

Not Selected: Status Quo Recreational Swordfish Retention Restrictions (No Action)

The only current HMS regulations applying to restricting recreational landings of swordfish is the minimum size limit of 47 inches LJFL and the Incidental catch quota. The United States currently receives 29 percent of the North Atlantic swordfish ICCAT quota. This quota is divided between Targeted catch and Incidental catch, the recreational catch comes out of the Incidental catch category (300 mt adjusted annually for over-harvest or under-harvest). Recreational anglers may not possess pieces of swordfish while aboard fishing vessels. Furthermore, U.S. citizens are not permitted to sell, barter, or trade Atlantic swordfish without possessing a valid commercial swordfish permit (directed, incidental or handgear). Maintaining status quo regulations without additional regulatory restrictions is not preferred because further regulations are needed to limit recreational landings of swordfish in order to promote a stable recreational swordfish fishery.

Ecological Impacts

Maintaining the status quo may have some ecological impacts, if the recreational swordfish fishery expands without any restriction. This alternative offers fewer conservation benefits than the preferred alternative.

Economic Impacts

The economic impact of the status quo alternative would be negligible, except if the fishery expands unchecked, potentially resulting in negative impacts on localized swordfish populations. Negative economic impacts may occur in the long-term, should more extensive management measures be required within the recreational swordfish fishery due to this unchecked expansion.

Social Impacts

Because the status quo alternative does not change management rules or fishing practices, its continuance would not be expected to have any significant social impacts on the U.S. recreational Atlantic blue and white marlin, or North Atlantic swordfish anglers in the short or long-term. However, this alternative offers fewer conservation benefits than more restrictive alternatives.

NOAA Fisheries Will Promote an Outreach Program on the Use and Benefits of Circle Hooks for Directed Recreational Swordfish Angling

In addition to the final actions discussed above, NOAA Fisheries will promote a circle hook outreach program. Recreational swordfish angling requires employing a fishing technique that specifically targets swordfish. The recreational swordfish fishery generally has a minimal bycatch of other species with the possible exception of bigeye or yellowfin tuna in the mid-Atlantic region. NOAA Fisheries has received information indicating that use of "J"-style hooks in the recreational fishery is resulting in foul-hooked fish (either in the fins or body) due to swordfish feeding behavior. Foul-hooked fish can receive sufficient damage to impair health or even lead to increased mortality levels. This is particularly problematic because the south Florida fishery is operating in an area with many under-sized swordfish, which may be more vulnerable to post-release mortality. Use of circle hooks in other large pelagic recreational fisheries has been shown to reduce foul-hooking, with a greater percentage of fish being hooked in the mouth. Circle hooks are already being used to some extent within the recreational fishery due to their recognized ecological benefits. Use of circle hooks by charter vessel operators and recreational anglers would be encouraged and promoted through various constituent groups, trade publications and federal and state agencies (e.g., NOAA Fisheries Office of Intergovernmental and Recreational Fisheries). The intent of these actions is to improve conservation of overfished Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish stocks.

4.4 Impacts on Other Finfish Species

The preferred alternative and non-selected alternatives that impact the number of recreational landings or the monitoring of landings of Atlantic billfish and/or North Atlantic swordfish will likely have little impact on other species. It is not anticipated that recreational fishing effort directed toward Atlantic billfish or swordfish by U.S. anglers will be reduced under the preferred alternative or the non-selected alternatives considered, therefore, species generally caught in association with these offshore pelagic fisheries (e.g., yellowfin tuna, wahoo, dolphin) would also remain unchanged.

4.5 Impacts to Protected Species

None of the alternatives considered would likely have any effect on protected species. Recreational fishing interactions with protected species (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds) are not widely monitored as discussed in section 3.2, but are receiving increased attention by various management entities including NOAA Fisheries. Improved bycatch monitoring measures may be implemented in future rulemaking. However, because fishing practices or fishing effort are not likely to change under the preferred alternatives, interactions with protected species are unlikely to change.

4.6 Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

The Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) provides a description of Atlantic marlin EFH, indicating that marlin occupy pelagic oceanic environments through all phases of their life histories. Likewise, North Atlantic swordfish EFH is comprised of oceanic environments, but with more clearly defined nursery areas. These nursery areas are located along the Florida east coast and northeastern Gulf of Mexico, including areas encompassed in the pelagic longline closures, as described in Regulatory Amendment One of the HMS FMP (NMFS, 2000a) and the EFH section of the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999b). The preferred alternatives to enhance monitoring of the Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish recreational fisheries and to establish swordfish recreational catch restrictions will likely have no impacts on nursery or pelagic EFH utilized by these or other species.

4.7 Mitigating Measures

The United States is obligated, under ATCA, to implement ICCAT recommendations. Failure to execute these actions in a timely manner would also increase the need for more restrictive measures in the future. To mitigate for any adverse impacts from this action, NOAA Fisheries will take the following measures:

Promotion of a Circle Hook Outreach Program:

Through various constituent groups (e.g., CCA, IGFA, RFA), trade publications and federal and state agencies (e.g., NOAA Fisheries Office of Intergovernmental and Recreational Fisheries),

NOAA Fisheries will promote a circle hook outreach program and encourage charter boat and headboat operators and recreational anglers to use circle hooks. Use of circle hooks in other large pelagic recreational fisheries has been shown to reduce foul-hooking, which would potentially decrease mortality levels for under-sized swordfish. See Section 4.3 of this EA for more details.

Landing Tag Program

NOAA Fisheries is pursuing a pilot program in cooperation with North Carolina and Maryland to include billfish in their existing landing tag programs for tunas. NOAA Fisheries will use information from these pilot programs and the call-in system implemented under this action to reevaluate an Atlantic marlin and North Atlantic swordfish landing tag system.

HMS Recreational Fishing Permit:

NOAA Fisheries is conducting a separate rulemaking to implement a more comprehensive HMS recreational fishing permit, improve recreational monitoring and assessment, and support outreach and educational initiatives.

Non-Target Finfish and Protected Species

NOAA Fisheries will investigate enhanced data collection activities on interactions with non-target finfish and protected species through additional logbooks, surveys, and where appropriate, observers.

4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Only minimal adverse impacts are expected under the preferred alternatives. Any short-term adverse impact imposed by the regulations are necessary to comply with Phase I of the Atlantic blue and white marlin rebuilding plan established by the 2000 ICCAT recommendation and to monitor swordfish recreational landings as part of the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has provided for mitigating measures under Section 4.7.

4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are expected under the preferred alternatives.

4.10 Environmental Justice Considerations

Executive Order 12898 requires that federal actions address environmental justice in the decision-making process. In particular, the environmental effects of the preferred alternatives should not have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income communities. The preferred alternatives would not have any effects on human health. The economic and social effects, if any, would be in communities associated with Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish recreational angling (i.e. motels, restaurants, marinas, tackle shops, and charter/head boats).

5.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Net economic benefits, angler consumer surplus, and economic impacts for Atlantic billfish are discussed in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a), while the limited information available for North Atlantic swordfish is discussed in the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999b). Updates to the information provided in the FMPs are provided in the 2001 and 2002 Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) reports (NMFS, 2001; NMFS, 2002).

Before implementing management measures, NOAA Fisheries must consider their economic impacts in accordance with two pieces of legislation: the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act) and Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). Both the Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866 require a description of the need for the action, the management objectives, and a description of the expected economic impacts. They also require an analysis of each alternative, the expected effects, and a description of the reasons why an action is being taken. The main difference between the Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866 is the focus of the analysis. While the Regulatory Flexibility Act focuses on individual businesses, E.O. 12866 focuses on the entire fishery.

The analyses required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866 are included in Sections 3, 4 and 6 of this document. Further information about the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, and economic impacts can be found in the Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a).

6.0. REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW (Executive Order 12866)

In compliance with E.O. 12866, the Department of Commerce and NOAA require the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that either implement a new FMP or significantly amend an existing plan, or may be significant in that they reflect agency policy concerns and are of public interest. The RIR is part of the process of preparing and reviewing FMPs and regulatory actions and is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the changes in net economic benefits to society associated with regulatory actions. Thus, the focus of the RIR is on the net economic benefit from the entire fishery, not the net economic benefit from individual fishermen. The analysis also provides a review of the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals, and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve those problems. The purpose of the analysis is to ensure that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

6.1 Identification and Analysis of the Problem

For a description of the problem, please see Section 1.2 of this document. For a description of the fisheries, please see the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999), the 2001 and 2002 SAFE reports (NMFS, 2001; NMFS, 2002a), and the FSEIS (NMFS, 2002b).

6.2 Description of the Management Objectives

For a description of the objectives of the preferred management measures, please see Section 1.3 of this document.

6.3 Evaluating the Economic Importance of a Fishery

There are two types of economic statistics that are used in evaluating the economic importance of a fishery, and it is important to be able to distinguish between the two statistics types, to avoid abuse of the term "economic importance." The first type of statistic is economic impact, which often interests both commercial and recreational fishermen, and which refers to the expenditures generated by their activity. In the commercial fishery, economic impact may include expenditures (bait, tackle, labor, etc.) and/or ex-vessel value of landings, plus value added in processing and distribution. In the recreational fishery, economic impact includes the money spent by anglers, such as charter boat fees, bait, fuel and tackle, travel (lodging, gas, hotels, restaurants, etc.). Conservationists may refer to the economic activity generated by non-consumptive uses of a resource (e.g., whale watching).

The second type of statistic is net economic benefit, which is the sum of producer and consumer surplus associated with the fishery. In the commercial fishery, economic benefit is profits, that is, the difference between total revenues and total costs. For species that are consumed domestically, the consumer surplus must also be added to profits. For the recreational fishery, net economic benefit is the sum of charter/party vessel profits plus angler consumer surplus. The angler consumer surplus essentially measures the maximum amount that an angler is willing to pay for the experience of catching and/or landing a fish. Angler consumer surplus is not a measure of the costs associated with fishing such as gear, fuel, food, and charter costs. Instead, it measures what the angler is willing to pay for the fishing experience beyond the costs associated with the trip, perhaps better described as a way of placing a monetary value on the pleasure that anglers get from participating in their fisheries. Conservationists who place a value on the survival of a species also "benefit" from the fishery; sometimes this is referred to as "existence value," a different kind of consumer surplus.

In previous management of Atlantic billfish, the focus was on anglers' expenditures (i.e, the first type of economic measures discussed above) as a measure of the economic effect of the recreational fishery (Ditton 1996; Ditton et al. 2000); the economic value of the recreational Atlantic billfish fishery was not previously considered. No economic assessment is available for the recreational swordfish fishery. The net economic value of a recreational activity is measured in terms of the net value of the activity to the participants over and above costs, which is its value to the nation. Economic impact is not the same as the economic value, because if recreationists cannot spend their money on a particular recreational activity, that money will be spent in another sector of the national economy. In the case of forgone recreational fishing activity, while the nation as a whole might not suffer economic loss, the coastal communities and businesses frequented by saltwater anglers may be negatively impacted by decreased fishing activity. Billfish fishing is also generally favored by persons with personal incomes that are far above the average U.S. per capita income (Ditton and Stoll, 1998), which means that these anglers can afford to take their fishing activities to other countries, potentially decreasing the benefit of saltwater angling to the United States.

6.4 Economic Importance of the Recreational Billfish and Swordfish Fisheries

The economic benefit of the Atlantic billfish fishery in the United States stems solely from the recreational sector since the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP prohibited commercial sale of Atlantic billfish from its management unit. However, as pointed out by Ditton (1996), the economic value of the recreational billfish fishery was not adequately established in the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP. The number of billfish anglers is relatively small in comparison to other angler groups, and is generally characterized as a "rare event" fishery, both in terms of the number of participants and the number of fish caught and/or landed (Fedler and Ditton 1990). The Billfish Amendment (NMFS, 1999a) and the 2001 and 2002 SAFE reports (NMFS, 2001; NMFS, 2002) provide a summary of all pertinent economic information relative to the U.S. Atlantic recreational billfish fishery. Although the recreational swordfish fishery has existed historically, the growth of the current recreational fishery has mainly transpired after the development of the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999b). The focus of the economic assessments included in the HMS FMP was on the commercial fishery and related impacts of various swordfish rebuilding scenarios. The 2001 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2001) provides some limited information on the growth of the recreational swordfish fishery, particularly along the east Florida coast and off the New Jersey coast, but there is no available information regarding the economic parameters associated with these developing recreational activities.

6.5 Economic Effects on the Recreational Billfish and Swordfish Fisheries

The economic effects of the preferred and other alternatives are provided in Section 4. Based on NOAA Fisheries review of comments received on the proposed rule, this action would not have a significant impact on fishery participants. Furthermore, the monitoring component of the preferred alternatives requires neither monetary cost or change in fishing behavior for compliance.

6.6 Summary of Net Benefits and Costs

NOAA Fisheries does not believe that the national net benefits and costs would change significantly in the long-term as a result of implementation of the preferred alternatives for improving monitoring of Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish recreational landings. The costs of requiring all recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish to be reported to a toll-free telephone system is minimal, taking less than 3 to 5 minutes for each no-cost report. It is expected that an additional 3 to 5 minutes would be required during a confirmation call-back by the NOAA Fisheries. This is a cost-effective system to address the monitoring objectives. It is also anticipated that the recreational retention limit and clarification of the criteria for size and size classes for swordfish will not result in any significant changes in net benefits or costs. As previously noted, to address potential impacts to charterboats and headboats, NOAA Fisheries changed the one swordfish per vessel retention limit in the proposed rule to a one fish per person, up to three fish per vessel, per trip, limit. No significant economic changes are anticipated from this limit. The swordfish fishery is a rare event fishery, and due to the size of most recreationally landed fish, the possession limit under the preferred alternative should be sufficient for fish intended for personal consumption.

In the long-term, the preferred alternatives included as part of international Atlantic-wide reductions in Atlantic billfish and swordfish landings by other ICCAT member entities should help rebuild the overfished stocks. Moreover, the retention limit should help remove the incentive for illegal sales of recreationally landed swordfish and encourage stability in the fishery. Table 4 indicates possible changes as a result of each alternative.

Table 4. Summary of benefits and costs for each alternative.

7.0 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT

This action is under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The objectives of this action are to comply with Phase I of the ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan; improve recreational landings data for west Atlantic sailfish; and conserve, manage and better monitor the recreational North Atlantic swordfish fishery. This action implements a mandatory landings reporting system to improve monitoring of recreational fisheries for Atlantic blue and white marlin, North Atlantic swordfish, and west Atlantic sailfish. This action also implements a swordfish recreational retention limit to avoid undue increases in mortality levels, prevent incentive for illegal sale of recreational landed swordfish, establish long-term stability within the recreational swordfish fishery, and ensure that the North Atlantic swordfish stock continues to rebuild and that the accrued conservation benefits from recent management measures are not compromised. For a complete description of the need for, and objectives of, this action see Section 1.3 of this document. A description of the affected fisheries is provided in Section 3 of this EA, the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999), the 2001 and 2002 SAFE reports (NMFS, 2001; 2002a), and the FSEIS (NMFS, 2002b).

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce previously certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NOAA Fisheries received no comments during the comment period for the proposed rule that would change that conclusion. However, as noted below, some issues were raised during the public comment period with regard to the swordfish retention limit. To respond to comments and better reflect current catch patterns, NOAA Fisheries modified the preferred alternative. This modification does not alter the agency's prior conclusion of no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final action will apply to all participants in the recreational Atlantic marlin and North Atlantic swordfish fisheries, all of which are considered small entities. The Billfish FMP estimated that there were 7,915 U.S. tournament billfish anglers in the western Atlantic in 1989. A 1992 inventory of 359 billfish tournaments indicated an average expenditure of $2,147 per angler per trip (including tournament fees), or $4,242 for each fish caught, corresponding to $32,382 for each billfish landed. Swordfish are not generally included in billfish tournament prize categories and non-tournament recreational catch data are not currently systematically collected but may be frequent. A complete discussion on affected environment is provided in Section 3 of this document.

On December 26, 2001 (66 FR 66386), NOAA Fisheries proposed a retention limit of one swordfish per vessel per trip. During public comment on the proposed