NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION 

Results of Commerce 

OIG’s Online Survey of 

Fishery Management 

Council Members and Staff 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 

APRIL 5, 2013 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit and Evaluation 

FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Office of Inspector General 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

April 5, 20 I 3 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 	 Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan 


Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 


and Atmosphere · M •· ~ .--­

FROM: Ann C. Eiler , _, L ~ '(',~ Principal Assistant Inspector General for Audit and Evaluation 

SUBJECT: 	 Results ofCommerce DIG's Survey ofFishery Management Council 

Members and Staff 

Final Report No. OIG-13-022-1 

Attached are the results of our online survey of Fishery Management Council (FMC) members 

and staff. The purpose of the survey was to obtain an FMC perspective on fishery regulatory 

requirements, rulemaking, and improvements in fisheries management. This is our second 

report in response to a request from Congressmen Barney Frank and John F. Tierney to review 

fisheries management at NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and at the eight 

regional FMCs. 

We asked FMC members and staff about interactions with NMFS and with the fishing industry 

and nongovernment organizations, regulatory requirements, FMC operations and training, and 

FMC compliance with the code of conduct. 

In general, responses to the survey were positive. Most survey participants were satisfied with 

their interactions with NMFS, as well as with the fishing industry and nongovernment 

organizations. Suggestions to improve collaboration between NMFS and FMCs mainly involved 

occurrence and methods of communication, participation from NOAA's Office of the General 

Counsel, and outreach and transparency to stakeholders. 

FMC members and staff also believed that FMCs and NMFS were complying with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the FMC code of conduct. 

Nonetheless, when asked to select the "top three problems in the fishery management plan 

development and amendment processes," respondents chose complexity of the process, 

timeliness, and public distrust. 

Finally, less than a third of survey respondents rated FMC training as effective (most selected 

"Neutral" or "Don't know" for questions regarding training). When asked about successful 

practices at their FMCs, respondents cited public participation, consideration of public input, 

and outreach and public education. 

We thank the FMC members and staff who completed the survey. If you have any questions 

about this report, please contact me at (202) 482-2754 or Andrew Katsaros at (202) 482-7859. 

Attachment 
 

 

Report In Brief 

APRIL 5, 2013 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION 

Results of Commerce OIG’s Online Survey of Fishery 

Management Council Members and Staff 

OIG-13-022-I 

WHAT WE FOUND 

Below are highlights of the survey responses by topic. 

Interactions with NMFS. We asked FMC members and staff to describe the 

effectiveness and frequency of verbal and written communications with NMFS 

and fishery management planning activities and assessed whether respondents 

are satisfied with NOAA’s replies to FMC inquiries on fisheries management and 

rulemaking. Forty-three percent rated NMFS written guidance as effective, and 6 

percent rated it as ineffective. Other respondents either were neutral or said 

they did not know. In addition, 70 percent of survey participants said they were 

usually satisfied with responses they had received from NMFS. 

Regulatory requirements. We solicited respondents’ views on compliance with the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Seventy-two percent of respondents rated the FMCs as effective, and 

3 percent rated the FMCs as ineffective. Also, 53 percent rated their NMFS 

Regional Office and Science Center as effective, and 6 percent rated them as 

ineffective. 

Interactions with the fishing industry and nongovernmental organizations. We asked 

respondents for their opinions on communication between the FMCs and 

advocacy groups. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said their region was 

effective at reaching out to the public in the development of fishery management 

actions, and 7 percent rated the region as ineffective. 

FMC operations and training. We asked respondents to evaluate whether the 

training and guidance they receive are effective and prepare them to accomplish 

their work. Nineteen percent of FMC members rated the NMFS regulatory 

training program as effective, and 4 percent rated it as ineffective. When 

questioned about the effectiveness of training received after joining the FMC as a 

council or staff member, 29 percent indicated that training was effective, and 

8 percent found training ineffective. 

Rules of conduct, conflict of interest, and ethics. We asked respondents about 

compliance with the rules of conduct and whether practices relating to ethical 

behavior and detection of undisclosed potential conflicts of interest are effective. 

Forty-six percent of respondents said they were confident that current 

procedures detected and prevented conflicts of interest, and 14 percent were 

not confident. Similarly, 47 percent were confident that procedures detected and 

prevented code of conduct violations, and 8 percent were not confident. 

Background 

We sent this survey to 292 fishery 

management council (FMC) members, member designees, and staff. 

Seventy nine percent of survey recipients (235 persons) responded. 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) is responsible for 

the management and conservation of 

living marine resources within the 

statutorily prescribed areas in the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: the 

area extending from 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore. NMFS provides 

scientific and policy leadership in the 

international arena and plays a key 

role in the management of living marine resources in coastal areas under 

state jurisdiction while implementing 

conservation and management actions aimed at sustaining long-term 

use and promoting the health of 

coastal and marine ecosystems. 

NMFS and FMCs work together to 

develop fisheries management strategies and rules for the commercial 

and recreational fishing industries. 

In the fisheries management process, 

FMCs partner with NMFS, state 

agencies, and other federal agencies. 

For the 5-year period from January 

2010 to December 2014, NOAA 

awarded nearly $100 million in 

grants and cooperative agreements 

to the FMCs. 

Why We Did This Review 

The purpose of the survey was to 

obtain an FMC perspective on fishery regulatory requirements, rulemaking, and improvements in fishery 

management. 

This is our second report in response to a request from Congressmen Barney Frank and John F. Tierney to review fisheries management 

at NMFS and at the eight regional 

FMCs. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

 

 

         

       

           

Contents 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Survey Results ................................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Interactions with NMFS .............................................................................................................................. 3
 

Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 5
 

Interactions with the Fishing Industry and Nongovernment Organizations ....................................7
 

Fishery Management Council Operations and Training .......................................................................9
 

Rules of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, and Ethics ............................................................................. 12
 

Other Comments and Suggestions........................................................................................................ 13
 

Appendix A: Survey Methodology and Response Rates ....................................................................... 15
 

COVER: Detail of fisheries pediment,

U.S. Department of Commerce headquarters,
 

by sculptor James Earle Fraser, 1934
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 
                                                            

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Introduction 

This report contains the results of OIG's online survey of Fishery Management Council (FMC) 

members and staff. The purpose of the survey was to obtain an FMC perspective on fishery 

regulatory requirements, rulemaking, and improvements in fisheries management. We sent the 

survey to 292 FMC members, member designees, and staff. As described in appendix A, 79 

percent of survey recipients (235 persons) responded. Appendix A also contains the scope and 

methodology of this phase of the review and the survey response rates for each FMC. 

This is our second report in response to a request from Congressmen Barney Frank and John 

F. Tierney1

 to review fisheries management at NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and at the eight regional FMCs. 

NMFS is responsible for the management and 

conservation of living marine resources within the 

statutorily prescribed areas in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ)—the area extending from 3 

to 200 nautical miles offshore. NMFS provides 

scientific and policy leadership in the international 

arena and plays a key role in the management of 

living marine resources while implementing sciencebased conservation and management actions aimed 

at sustaining long-term use and promoting the health 

of coastal and marine ecosystems. Within this 

context, NMFS and FMCs work together to develop 

fisheries management strategies and rules for the 

commercial and recreational fishing industries. 

In the fisheries management process, FMCs partner 

with NMFS, state agencies, and other federal 

agencies (as shown in figure 1). 

FMCs allow for regional, participatory governance by knowledgeable people with a stake in 

fisheries management. FMCs prepare, monitor, and revise fishery management plans (FMPs) and 

data collection programs for domestic and foreign fishing within the EEZ. This is done with 

approval and implementation by the Commerce Secretary, who has stewardship responsibility 

for living marine resources in the EEZ under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA).2  

Fisheries

Management

Other

Federal

Agencies

FMCs

State

Agencies NMFS

Other

Stake

holders

‐

Figure 1. Fisheries Management 

Partners 

1

 August 17, 2011, letter from Congressmen Barney Frank and John F. Tierney to the Department of Commerce 

Inspector General.

2 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 1 
 

                                                            

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

For the 5-year period from January 2010 to Figure 2. FMC Funding from NOAA 

December 2014, NOAA awarded nearly $100 million 

in grants and cooperative agreements to the FMCs 

(see figure 2). The funding covers operating expenses 

such as staff salaries, office space, public meeting 

costs, travel, and compensation to eligible FMC 

members.3 

In addition to the resources provided to FMCs for 

operations, FMCs can apply for other NOAA-funded 

grants and cooperative agreements. For instance, for 

the period spanning from 2010 to 2014, NOAA 

awarded the Western Pacific FMC seven grants and 

agreements in addition to its cooperative agreement 

for operations. The largest covers expenses related 

to conservation and management efforts to address 

fisheries interactions with protected species. Another helps implement projects to provide 

relief to Hawaiian fishermen whose annual bigeye tuna quotas are not sufficient to meet market 

demand and provides technical assistance to American Samoa as it develops a bigeye tuna 

fishery. 

Figure 3. FMC Members and Staff FMCs and NMFS manage 46 FMPs. NMFS 

regional offices, NMFS components, and FMCs 

actively participate in the early stages of 

fisheries management actions (frontload4 

development), as well as the continued analysis, 

evaluation, and implementation of these actions. 

Deliverables from these efforts include FMPs, 

FMP amendments, proposed and final rules, 

annual harvest specifications, and in-season 

management actions. NMFS also assists in the 

development, review, and implementation of 

FMC-proposed actions. As shown in figure 3, 

Caribbean 

6% 

Gulf of 

Mexico 

11% 

MidAtlantic 

11% 

New 

England 

12% 

North 

Pacific 

13% 

Pacific 

14% 

South 

Atlantic 

12% 

Western 

Pacific 

21% 

Source: OIG analysis of data from NOAA’s 

Grants Online system 

Member 

Designees 

14% 

Members 

46% Staff 

40% 

Source: OIG analysis of information on FMC web 

sites 

3

 Each FMC has voting and nonvoting members. Voting members who are appointed by the Commerce Secretary 

and not employed by federal, state, or local government receive compensation for time spent at meetings and 

when officially representing the FMC or conducting official business of the FMC. The MSA established 114 voting 

members on the eight FMCs: the NMFS regional administrators, state marine fisheries management officials, and 

individuals appointed by the Commerce Secretary. 

4 Frontloading refers to active participation of FMCs and key NMFS staff (e.g., Sustainable Fisheries, Protected 

Resources, and Habitat Conservation divisions, as well as economists, social scientists, and legal counsel) at the 

early stages of fisheries management action development. The goal is to ensure that to the extent practicable, all 

significant legal and policy issues will be identified early in the process. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 2 
 

                                                            

   

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

the approximately 295 positions at the eight FMCs include staff, members, and member 

designees.5 

Survey Results 

This section of the report contains respondents’ answers to direct questions in the survey and 

summaries of their responses to questions requiring a written explanation. We did not conduct 

follow-up interviews or detailed analyses of their answers. 

Interactions with NMFS 

The first of five topics in the survey asked FMC members and staff to describe the effectiveness 

and frequency of verbal and written communications with NMFS,6

 covered fishery management 

planning activities, and assessed whether respondents are satisfied with NOAA’s replies to FMC 

inquiries on fisheries management and rulemaking. We asked four direct questions and allowed 

respondents to describe their ideas to improve interactions with NMFS. 

Questions and responses 

1.	 How would you rate the written guidance (including resources that are available 

online) that NMFS provides to FMCs for the development of fishery management 

actions? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 43 

Neutral 39 

Ineffective 6 

Don’t Know 12 

2. How often do you directly communicate with NMFS employee(s) or office(s)? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

One or more times each week 38 

One or two times each month 35 

One time each quarter 16 

Less than one time each quarter 11 

5 The MSA allows state officials, federal officials, and the Indian Tribal representative on the Pacific FMC (all of 

which are voting FMC members) to designate an alternate to sit in his or her place on an FMC. 16 U.S.C. §

1852(b)(1)(A)-(B), (b)(5)(D). Requirements for FMC designees for voting members are codified in implementing 

regulations at 50 C.F.R. §§ 600.205 and 600.207. Nonvoting members representing the U.S. Coast Guard, 

Department of State, and the Marine Fisheries Commissions may also designate an alternate, although they are not 

required to do so by the MSA. Designees have knowledge about fishery management actions and understand the 

responsibilities of an FMC member. 6

 In this report, NMFS includes NMFS headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, six regional offices, six science 

centers, and the NOAA Office of the General Counsel. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 3 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

3. When you have questions about FMP development or amendments or rule 

development, how satisfied are you with the response you receive from NMFS? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Usually satisfied 70 

Rarely satisfied 12 

Never satisfied 0 

No interactions 18 

4.	 In your region how effective is preplanning, frontloading (early review of draft 

documents to ensure that significant legal and policy issues are identified and 

managed, to the extent practicable), and balancing workload? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 39 

Neutral 31 

Ineffective 15 

Don’t know 15 

Improving interactions between NMFS and FMCs 

NMFS regional offices coordinate directly with their FMCs to assign and manage 

responsibilities related to fisheries actions. Because region–Council pairs are unique in 

terms of the fisheries managed and the number of FMCs working with an NMFS regional 

office, specific approaches to planning and prioritizing work vary. Although NMFS 

regional offices have autonomy in working with the FMCs in their region, given the 

complexity of some of the documents that FMCs and NMFS prepare and the long 

timelines involved in developing and implementing fishery regulations, there is commonly 

room to improve communications. Therefore, we asked respondents to “describe ideas 

that you have for improving interactions and communication with NMFS headquarters, 

regional offices, science centers, and NOAA Office of the General Counsel (GC) as it 

relates to development and implementation of fishery management actions and 

regulations.” Sixty-one percent of the respondents’ comments fit into three broad 

categories. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 4 
                                                            

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Collaboration Between NMFS and FMCs 

Response Category 

Percentage Whose 

Response Fits into This 

Category 

Change the occurrence and methods of 

communication between NMFS and the FMCs 37 

More participation from NOAA GC 13 

Improve outreach and transparency to 

stakeholders 11 

The rest of the responses we received to this question were dissimilar and scattered across 

many categories. Consequently, fewer than 10 percent of the comments fit into these 

categories: Greater involvement early on from NMFS headquarters; More consistent 

participation and help from NMFS in preparing documents; Simplify and increase FMC access to 

NOAA libraries and data; and Improve coordination with states (e.g., NMFS actively reaching 

out to the states and others to seek more grassroots understanding and input when dealing 

with quota monitoring and updates to landings data7

). 

Regulatory Requirements 

The second topic in the survey focused on respondents’ views on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements of the MSA and the top challenges that the regional FMCs and NMFS 

face in managing fisheries in compliance with the legislative mandate. 

Questions and responses 

1.	 How effective is your FMC when it comes to meeting the requirements of the MSA 

national standards?8 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 72 

Neutral 17 

Ineffective 3 

Don’t know 8 

7 Landings data is information on the amount of fish caught and landed per year. 8 The national standards are statutory principles described in the MSA that must be followed when developing, 

amending, and implementing FMPs. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 5 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2. How effective are your NMFS Regional Office and your Science Center when it 

comes to meeting the requirements of the MSA national standards? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 53 

Neutral 28 

Ineffective 6 

Don’t know 13 

3. In your region, what are the top three problems in the fishery management plan 

development and amendment processes? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Complexity of the process 67 

Timeliness 44 

Public distrust 36 

Inadequate staff/resources 35 

Unreliable scientific information 33 

Other 32 

Excessive external influence 

from industry 17 

Redundancy 12 

Poor management in general 3 

In the Other category, respondents could explain in their own words the top problems 

in the FMP development and amendment processes. Twenty-five respondents 

mentioned that insufficient (and limitations of the) data are a significant issue. Their 

concern extended beyond the science relating to species and stock assessments. Some 

respondents pointed out an absence of adequate social, economic, and landings 

information, which affects fisheries management and decision making. Respondents 

emphasized that the information is not necessarily unreliable but in some instances is 

unavailable or incomplete. Among this group, the consensus was that NOAA should 

greatly improve the quality, quantity, and timeliness of data. 

The remainder of the comments in the Other category included criticisms of the 

makeup and composition of the FMCs, intrusion (from NOAA and advocacy groups) 

into FMC decision making, and insufficient coordination and workload planning between 

NOAA and the FMCs. An example shared by one respondent was an inability to set 

(and stick to) priorities while taking into account the realities of limited staff and 

resources. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 6 
 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

4. To what extent are the economic and social impacts of fishing regulations given 

adequate consideration in the fishery management and decision-making processes? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

To a great extent 35 

Somewhat 34 

To a small extent 18 

Not at all 3 

Don’t know 10 

5. In your region are all sectors (such as commercial and recreational interests) fairly 

represented on the Council? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Yes 74 

No 16 

Don’t know 10 

FMC member and staff ideas for improving FMP and rulemaking processes 

We asked respondents, “If you could make any changes you saw fit, what modifications 

would you make to improve the FMP development, amendment, or rulemaking 

processes?” Of the 168 FMC members and staff who answered the question, the 

responses fell into seven categories, which we list in the table below. 

Suggested Changes to FMP Development, Amendment, or Rulemaking Processes 

Response Category 

Percentage Whose Response 

Fits into This Category 

Streamline the process 38 

Improve the quality of the data 17 

Change the management philosophy 14 

Increase funding, staffing levels, and define job duties 11 

Improve communication 10 

Increase transparency, simplify language in documents, and 

other comments (such as define the meaning of best 

available data, implement a complaint hotline, improve the 

quality of legal advice, and improve training) 

9 

No changes necessary 1 

Interactions with the Fishing Industry and Nongovernment Organizations 

Questions in the third section of the survey focused on communication between the FMCs and 

advocacy groups that have a stake in the fisheries management process and the resulting 

regulations. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 7 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Questions and responses 

1.	 How effective is your region in reaching out to and encouraging public participation 

and input in the development and amendment of fishery management actions? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 68 

Neutral 22 

Ineffective 7 

Don’t know 3 

2. To what extent does the FMC consider public comments when developing fishery 

management actions? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Always 76 

Sometimes 17 

Never 2 

Don’t know 5 

3. To what extent does input from fishing groups influence the fishery management and 

decision-making process? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

To a great extent 34 

Somewhat 55 

Not at all 1 

Don’t know 10 

4. To what extent does input from environmental advocacy groups influence the 

fishery management and decision-making process? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

To a great extent 25 

Somewhat 61 

Not at all 3 

Don’t know 11 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 8 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Improving the relationship between FMCs and stakeholders 

When given the chance to describe suggestions to improve the relationship among the 

FMCs, the fishing industry, and other stakeholders, respondents’ comments fit into the 

categories listed in the table below. 

Suggestions to Improve the Relationship Among FMCs, the Fishing Industry, and Other 

Stakeholders 

Response Category 

Percentage Whose Response 

Fits into This Category 

More meaningful engagement and outreach (specifically 

two-way, informal, and community-specific interactions) 46 

Improved science (by providing more funding, give science 

a higher priority, and increase use of socioeconomic 

information and science from external sources) 14 

Improve accessibility to FMC meetings (in terms of 

location and increased use of online access to meetings, 

such as webinars) 

8 

Other (includes bringing stakeholders into the scoping and 

planning processes earlier, a decreasing external influences, 

simplifying the regulations, increasing FMC flexibility in 

response to changing external factors such as economic 

conditions and public input, and using advisory panels more 

effectively) 32 a

This suggestion predominately comes from the four FMCs on the East Coast: New England, Mid-Atlantic, South 

Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. 

Fishery Management Council Operations and Training 

The fourth topic in the survey asked respondents to evaluate whether the training and guidance 

they receive are effective and prepare them to accomplish their work. For FMC members and 

member designees in particular, the questions in this part of the survey were intended to 

evaluate whether NMFS provides the information that they need to make informed decisions. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 9 
                                                            

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Questions and responses 

1. Rate the effectiveness of the NOAA Fisheries regulatory training program.9 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 19 

Neutral 25 

Ineffective 4 

Don’t know 52 

2. How effective was the training you received when you joined the Council or became 

a Council staff member? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Effective 29 

Neutral 43 

Ineffective 8 

Don’t know 20 

3. Have you received training on your Council’s Standard Operating Policies and 

Procedures10? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Yes 52 

No 42 

Don’t know 6 

4. How often have you attended presentations or training hosted by organizations 

other than your regional Council or NMFS? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Monthly 2 

Quarterly 8 

Once or twice each year 50 

I have not attended presentations or training 40 

9

 The MSA has a training requirement for newly appointed FMC members. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(k). The mandatory 

training course is available to existing FMC members and staff as well as staff from NMFS regional offices and 

regional science centers. Generally FMC staff attend the training as resources allow. To ensure new members 

satisfy the training requirement, the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries Regulatory Services Division tracks 

attendance. If newly appointed FMC members cannot attend the first training, they are invited to complete their 

training the next year. 

10 This question refers to the requirement stated at 16 U.S.C § 1852(f)(6) that each Council shall determine its 

organization, and prescribe its practices and procedures for carrying out its functions under this Act, in accordance 

with such uniform standards as are prescribed by the Secretary. Each Council shall publish and make available to 

the public a statement of its organization, practices, and procedures. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 10 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Guidance to FMC members and staff 

Eighty-one FMC members and staff provided a reply to our request that they “describe 

information you have about Council operations or fishery management processes that 

would have been helpful or advantageous to have known earlier.” Many of the responses 

are unique, and the table that follows puts the comments we received into broad 

categories. 

Information That Would Have Been Helpful Earlier 

Response Category 

Percentage Whose Response Fits 

into This Category 

Knowledge of the MSA; information on fishing 

regulations, FMC operating procedures, and NEPA 46 

Various statements about the MSA and the 

respondent’s region; further explained their 

response to other questions in the survey 28 

Time-consuming nature of the FMC and complexity 

of the FMP amendment process 14 

Better understanding of roles and responsibilities of 

NMFS and FMCs 10 

Shortcomings of OIG survey and other data 2 

Successful practices at FMCs 

We asked the survey respondents to tell us what their FMC does well, which other 

FMCs should consider implementing. Six of the eight FMCs indicated that in their region, 

public participation, consideration of public input, and outreach and public education are 

strengths. Additionally, about half of the FMCs identified other areas in which they 

perceived that they have done well. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 11 
 

 

 

                                                            

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Areas Where the FMCs Are Doing Well 

Region Summary of Comments 

New England 

Cited the Marine Resource Education Programa as an accomplishment 

that other FMCs could follow 

Mid-Atlantic 

Noted the value it has gained from visioning, risk assessment, and 

strategic planning activities 

South Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico 

Referred to informal public meetings such as question-and-answer 

sessions with the NMFS regional administrator, which are held after 

Council meetings and suggested that these and other nonadversarial 

interactions engage the public and improve relationships 

Pacific 

Recommended posting documents on the FMCs’ website to ensure 

that relevant information is accessible and easily located 

Western Pacific 

Advocated understanding local culture and using that knowledge to 

accommodate and educate the regulated public 

Southeast 

Identified use of interdisciplinary planning teams (IPTs)b as an 

approach to strategic planning that works well a

The Marine Resource Education Program is a professional development program that brings fishermen, scientists, 

and managers together in a neutral setting, providing an opportunity to explore both differences and common 

goals outside of the regulatory forum.
 b

IPTs are formed as needed to address fisheries management actions. They include staff from NMFS headquarters, 

the Southeast Regional Office, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement, 

NOAA GC, and FMC partners. An IPT scoping document covers all assigned roles, tasks, and deadlines to be 

accomplished. While IPTs are not new conceptually, their use is currently limited to the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean FMCs. Benefits of IPTs include accountability, timeliness of input from internal stakeholders, and 

increased ability to identify and address concerns earlier in the process.
 

Rules of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, and Ethics 

The fifth section of the survey asked respondents to share their opinion on compliance with the 

rules of conduct and whether practices relating to ethical behavior and detection of undisclosed 

potential conflicts of interest are effective. The Department of Commerce Ethics Law and 

Programs Division, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration has issued 

written Rules of Conduct for Members of FMCs11 (and a separate document addressing the 

Rules of Conduct for Staff and Advisors of FMC12). The documents emphasize the importance 

of maintaining a high standard of conduct to ensure public confidence in the actions of the 

FMCs. To meet the financial disclosure requirements stated in the MSA13, NOAA asks that the 

voting council members and council member nominees disclose financial interests on a 

Statement of Financial Interests form. 

11 The document covers the specific rules that apply to each type of FMC member–public member, Federal official 

and state government official.

12 The document summarizes the statutory and regulatory conduct rules that apply to FMC staff. FMC staffs are 

subject to ethics regulations issued by NOAA for all FMC employees. 13 16 U.S.C. § 1852(j)(2)
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 12 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Questions and responses 

1.	 How confident are you that the current procedures and practices detect and 

prevent potential conflicts of interest? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Confident 46 

Somewhat confident 29 

Not confident 14 

Don’t know 11 

2. How confident are you that the current procedures and practices detect and 

prevent code of conduct violations? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Confident 47 

Somewhat confident 29 

Not confident 8 

Don’t know 16 

3. Generally how ethical do you perceive your Council to be? 

Answer Options Response Rate (%) 

Always ethical 76 

Sometimes ethical 22 

Rarely ethical 2 

Other Comments and Suggestions 

We reserved space at the end of the survey for respondents to write about any topic or issue 

that they consider important that we did not include in the questionnaire. We received 72 

comments that were responsive to the request, and the statements we received varied, without 

a majority of respondents commenting on a specific area. In some instances, the FMC member 

or staff wrote about a topic that was covered in the questionnaire. The table below lists the 

categories of responses we received. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 13 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Topics Not Included in Questionnaire 

Response Category 

Percentage of the 

Comments That Fit in This 

Category 

Various statements from respondents (such as better policy 

for working with nongovernment organizations, increase 

efforts to get local buy-in and ownership in the process, and 

improve credibility by reaching out to state and local 

partners more) 36 

Perceptions of bias in the FMP development and rulemaking 

processes 20 

Improvements and features of scientific information and the 

design of catch share programs 15 

Funding, adequacy of resources 8 

Various statements on the features of regional oversight and 

distribution of work between FMCs and NMFS 8 

Clarity on conflict of interest and ethics 7 

Various comments on issues related to MSA and national 

standards 4 

Handling litigation and responses to Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) requests 2 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 14 
                                                            

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix A: Survey Methodology and 

Response Rates 

This report is based on an online survey of the staff and members at the eight regional FMCs. 

We sent the survey to 292 persons, comprising all FMC staff, members, and member designees. 

Our questions covered the following general areas: respondent information and background, 

interactions with NMFS, regulatory requirements, interactions with the fishing industry and 

nongovernment organizations, FMC operations and training, and code of conduct/ethics. 

To ensure that the survey questions were well-written, we asked two knowledgeable 

employees at the NMFS Northwest Regional Office Sustainable Fisheries Division and our inhouse subject matter expert to read the survey, identify questions that lacked clarity, and 

provide suggestions for improvement. We modified the survey to minimize question bias and to 

ensure it contained the most relevant information. We used SurveyMonkey to conduct the 

survey and sent e-mails to FMC staff, members, and member designees, so that they could 

access the survey. Respondents had 2 weeks to complete the survey. 

When the survey ended on June 27, 2012, 79 percent of FMC staff, members, and member 

designees had responded. Table 1 summarizes response rates by FMC/region. 

Table 1. Survey Response Rate by FMC/Region 

FMC/Region Responses Population Response 

Rate (%) 

Caribbean 14 22 64 

Gulf of Mexico 35 44 80 

Mid-Atlantic 32 40 80 

New England 38 43 88 

North Pacific 22 28 79 

Pacifica 33 52 63 

South Atlantic 32 33 97 

Western Pacific 25 33 76 

Subtotal 231 295 — 

Multiple regions 4 4 —

 Total 235 299 79 a

When we closed the survey, the Pacific region had an FMC meeting coming up, 

 which may explain their lower response rate. 

Four of the respondents are officially members or member designees for two or more FMCs. 

For these respondents, we created the separate category Multiple regions. This expansion 

increased the regional population count by seven.14 

14 We derived the count of seven as follows: Survey respondents included two NOAA employees who participate 

in three FMCs (causing a duplication of four), one NOAA employee who participates in two FMCs (causing a 

duplication of one), and one Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission employee participates in three FMCs 

(causing a duplication of two). 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 15 
Table 2. Survey Response Rate by Respondent Position 

Respondent Position Response 

Count Population Response Rate (%) 

FMC member 94 132 71 

FMC member designee 29 46 63 

FMC staff 112 121 93 

Total 235 299 79 

Figure 4. Survey Respondents by

Employer or Section Represented 

7%

8%

36%

19%

9%

21%

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

In total, 18 respondents indicated that they work with 

more than one regional FMC: 14 FMC members, 2 FMC 

member designees, and 2 FMC staff. However, 14 of 

them are not officially assigned to multiple FMCs, so we 

associated those 14 responses with their official FMC. 

Of those who did not reply to the survey, some were on 

leave or special assignment. Some began but did not 

complete the survey, possibly because their specific job as

FMC staff or their short tenure in their current position 

left them feeling that they could not adequately and 

objectively respond to the questions. 

Respondents are affiliated with advocacy groups or 

government and represent various sectors of the fishing 

industry. Figure 4 summarizes respondents by the sector 

represented or other affiliation. Table 2 summarizes 

respondents by the position held at the FMCs. 

We conducted this review under the authority of the 

Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Department Organization Order 10-13, dated 

August 31, 2006, as amended. We conducted the review in accordance with the Quality 

Standards for Inspection and Evaluation (January 2011), issued by the Council of Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-13-022-I 16 

011200000138