NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION 

Follow-up Review of 

NOAA Fisheries 

Enforcement Programs 

and Operations 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-017-I 

JANUARY 31, 2012 

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 

January 31, 20 12 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Dr. Jane Lubchenco 

Under SecretaJofCommerce 

for Oceans and A osphe7J G).· . 

FROM: 	 Ann C. Eilers /hN-- C . ~~ Principal Assistant Inspector Gene I or Audit and Evaluation 

SUBJECT: 	 Follow-up Review ofNOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and 

Operations 

This is our final report detailing the results of our follow-up review of NOAA fisheries 

enforcement programs and operations. In response to our January 21 , 20 I 0, report, Review of 

NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations, NOAA identified activities planned or 

already taken to improve its Office of Law Enforcement within the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), along with NOAA's Office of General Counsel, Enforcement Section. In 

NOAA's response, public announcements, and press releases, we identified 47 action items. 

We conducted a follow-up review to (I) provide an interim assessment of NOAA's corrective 

actions, (2) determine the effectiveness of actions already taken, and (3) identify constructive 

measures NOAA should consider going forward. We targeted the scope of our review to 

NOAA's submitted action plan. This report presents the findings of our review, conducted 

under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Department 

Organization Order I 0-13, dated August 3 I , 2006. · 

We found that NOAA has taken some positive steps in addressing challenges identified in our 

reviews. As identified in appendix C, during the past two years NOAA has completed or 

implemented a majority of the action items. NOAA has decided not to implement 2 action 

items, leaving 13 of the action items to be completed. 

We have received your January 18, 20 12, response to our draft report. Where appropriate, we 

have modified this final report based on this response and discussions with NOAA subsequent 

to the issuance of the draft report. The formal NOAA response is included as an appendix. The 

final report will be posted on the OIG's website pursuant to section 8L of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended. 

We would like to express our thanks to your staff for the courtesies shown to us during our 

review. Please direct any inquiries regarding this report to me at (202) 482-2754 and refer to 

the report title in all correspondence. 

Attachment 
cc: 	 Monica Medina, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

Samuel Rauch, Acting Assistant Administrator, NOAA Fisheries 

Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, NOAA Fisheries 

Lois Schiffer, General Counsel, NOAA 

Bruce Buckson, Director, Office of Law Enforcement, NMFS 

Mary B. Ward, Deputy General Counsel, NOAA 

Ben Friedman, Deputy General Counsel, NOAA 

Charles L. Green, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Enforcement Section, 

NOAA 


Edward Horton, Chief Administrative Officer, NOAA 


Mack Cato, Audit Liaison, NOAA 

 

 

 

 

 

Report In Brief 

JANUARY 31, 2012 

Background 

This review follows up our January 

21, 2010, Review of NOAA Fisheries 

Enforcement Programs and Operations. The report found the following: (1) NOAA senior leadership 

and headquarters elements need 

to exercise substantially greater 

management and oversight of the 

agency’s regional enforcement 

operations. (2) NOAA needs to 

strengthen policy guidance, procedures, and internal controls in its 

enforcement operations, to address 

a common industry perception that 

its civil penalty assessment process 

is arbitrary and unfair. 

(3) NOAA needs to reassess its 

Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) 

workforce composition (presently 

90 percent criminal investigators), 

to determine if this criminalenforcement-oriented structure is 

the most effective for accomplishing its primarily regulatory mission. 

In response, NOAA identified activities planned or already taken to 

improve its Office of Law Enforcement, along with its Office of the 

General Counsel Enforcement 

Section. In a February 3, 2010, 

memo, a March 18, 2010, response, 

and several public announcements, 

NOAA identified 47 immediate and 

long-term activities to address OIG 

findings and recommendations 

Why We Did This Review 

We conducted this review to (1) 

provide an interim assessment of 

NOAA’s corrective actions, (2) determine the effectiveness of actions 

already taken, and (3) identify constructive measures NOAA should 

consider going forward. We targeted 

the scope of our review to the 

NOAA action plan. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION 

Follow-up Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement 

Programs and Operations 

OIG-12-017-I 

WHAT WE FOUND 

NOAA made progress in completing many key action plan items. 

During the past two years, NOAA has completed or implemented a majority of 

the 47 action items, to include (1) requiring a high-level review of all proposed 

charges for alleged violations and of all settlements by the General Counsel for 

NOAA, (2) finalizing a rule to place the burden of justifying a particular civil 

penalty or sanction on NOAA rather than the respondent in cases before 

Administrative Law judges, and (3) developing a new penalty policy. 

Regional and national priorities for OLE have not been finalized. OLE 

had deferred finalizing its enforcement priorities until it hired a permanent 

director, who has been on board since September 4, 2011. 

NOAA’s placement of the compliance liaison within OLE raises 

independence concerns. As part of its action plan, NOAA established a 

compliance liaison in OLE’s Northeast office. However, the liaison reports 

directly to the Northeast office’s Special Agent in Charge, which may foster the 

appearance that the position’s independence may be impaired. 

NOAA’s workforce analysis is one year behind schedule. As of 

December 2011, NOAA had not begun the implementation phase of its 

workforce analysis, which was scheduled to begin October 2010. 

Enforcement case management system data integrity issues have not 

been resolved. OLE and GCEL have not fully addressed data integrity issues 

within and between their two case management systems: JustWare and the Law 

Enforcement Accessible Database System. 

OLE and Enforcement Section policies and procedures manuals need 

to include a consistent method for handling prior violation 

information. Neither manual provides a method for documenting, storing, or 

obtaining prior violation information, an important factor when deciding a 

penalty assessment or sanction. 

Enforcement Section participation in Fishery Management Council 

Meetings has been limited and inconsistent. NOAA had planned to 

increase communications with the Fishery Management Council by ensuring 

availability of Enforcement section attorneys at meetings. However, participation 

has been limited in two regions. 

E-hotline and “Complaints and Compliments” web page effectiveness 

is uncertain. Having different methods of submitting complaints of enforcement 

improprieties may be confusing for complainants. 
 

 

 

 

         

       

           

   

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Contents 

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

Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
 

I. NOAA Made Progress in Completing Many Key Action Plan Items ......................................2
 

II. Regional and National Priorities for OLE Have Not Been Finalized.......................................2
 

III. NOAA’s Placement of the Compliance Liaison Within OLE Raises Independence 

 Concerns ............................................................................................................................................... 3
 

IV. NOAA’s Workforce Analysis Is One Year Behind Schedule ....................................................3
 

V. Enforcement Case Management System Data Integrity Issues Have Not Been 

 Resolved................................................................................................................................................. 4
 

VI. OLE and Enforcement Section Policies and Procedures Manuals Need to Include 

 a Consistent Method for Handling Prior Violation Information ...............................................5
 

VII. OLE Staff Consistently Attend Fishery Management Council Meetings; 

 Enforcement Section Participation Has Been Limited and Inconsistent ..................................6
 

VIII. E-Hotline and ‘Complaints and Compliments’ Web Page Effectiveness Is Uncertain ..........6
 

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
 

Summary of Department and OIG Comments ......................................................................................... 8
 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................... 9
 

Appendix B: January 2010 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 10
 

Appendix C: NOAA Action Items............................................................................................................. 11
 

Appendix D: Response to OIG’s Draft Report ...................................................................................... 14
 

COVER: Detail of fisheries pediment,

U.S. Department of Commerce headquarters,
 

by sculptor James Earle Fraser, 1934
 

FINAL REPORT 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Introduction 

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2010, OIG has issued three public reports on the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) fisheries enforcement efforts. This 

review follows up on our January 21, 2010, Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and 

Operations, which found that NOAA senior leadership and headquarters elements need to 

exercise substantially greater management and oversight of the agency’s regional enforcement 

operations; NOAA needs to strengthen policy guidance, procedures, and internal controls in its 

enforcement operations to address a common industry perception that its civil penalty 

assessment process is arbitrary and unfair; and NOAA needs to reassess its Office of Law 

Enforcement (OLE) workforce composition (presently 90 percent criminal investigators), to 

determine if this criminal-enforcement-oriented structure is the most effective for 

accomplishing its primarily regulatory mission. The five recommendations in the January 2010 

report are included in appendix B. 

In its memo of February 3, 2010, its response of March 18, 2010, and several announcements, 

NOAA itemized immediate and long-term actions to address OIG findings and 

recommendations. A complete list of all related NOAA action items is in appendix C. With the 

understanding that some efforts were still being implemented, we conducted an interim 

assessment to determine NOAA’s progress through October 2011. 

We found that NOAA has taken some positive steps in addressing challenges identified in our 

reviews. As identified in appendix C, during the past two years NOAA has completed most its 

planned action items. We identified various others that have not been completed and two that 

NOAA has decided not to implement. 

FINAL REPORT 1 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Results 

I. NOAA Made Progress in Completing Many Key Action Plan Items 

Significantly, and to its credit, NOAA has (a) required a high-level review of all proposed 

charges for alleged violations and of all settlements by the General Counsel for NOAA; (b) 

finalized a rule to place the burden of justifying a particular civil penalty or sanction on NOAA 

rather than the respondent in cases before Administrative Law Judges; and (c) developed a new 

penalty policy, including a revision of the penalty and permit sanction schedules. Also, beginning 

on March 16, 2010, NOAA’s Office of General Counsel, Enforcement Section (Enforcement 

Section) adopted a policy requiring consistent documentation on standardized case assessment 

forms of case facts, charging decisions, and proposed civil penalty amounts. The Enforcement 

Section also implemented a policy to have all cases reviewed by NOAA’s Deputy General 

Counsel or General Counsel. We reviewed all 196 cases processed since the policy went into 

effect through March 25, 2011, and verified that Enforcement Section management has 

instituted and is utilizing a process that clearly documents attorney notes and higher-level 

reviews of the facts and alleged offenses. 

The Enforcement Section also developed a comprehensive policy and procedures manual and 

trained staff on those procedures during the week of March 28, 2011. The manual provides 

operational and procedural consistency nationwide and is a positive step toward addressing the 

perception that Enforcement Section attorneys operate without regard to process. However, 

as discussed on p. 5, the Enforcement Section needs to establish guidelines on how it 

documents and retrieves prior history data on alleged violators of fishing regulations. 

Before we issued our January 2010 report, the Enforcement Section did not have a national 

penalty policy. Instead, the Enforcement Section gave each attorney significant discretion in 

setting penalties. In response to our recommendations, the Enforcement Section attempted to 

simplify the penalty setting process by establishing one penalty permit sanction matrix for each 

major statute that NOAA enforces, with narrower penalty and permit sanction ranges to be 

applied nationally. 

II. Regional and National Priorities for OLE Have Not Been Finalized 

Previously, NOAA established OLE priorities at the regional level, contributing to the lack of 

oversight from headquarters. As of November 2011, OLE has drafted regional and national 

enforcement priorities based on recommendations from participants at its fisheries 

enforcement summit, Fishery Management Councils, interstate fishery commissions, 

nongovernment organizations, internal staff, and other NOAA offices. However, OLE has yet to 

finalize its regional and national enforcement priorities. During the OIG review, NOAA 

informed us that OLE had deferred finalizing its enforcement priorities until it hired a 

permanent director, who has been on board since September 4, 2011. 

FINAL REPORT 2 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

III. NOAA’s Placement of the Compliance Liaison Within OLE Raises 

Independence Concerns 

As part of its action plan, NOAA established a permanent “compliance liaison,” a position 

piloted in OLE’s Northeast office. The compliance liaison is expected to interpret laws, 

regulations, and policies; conduct outreach activities; and troubleshoot emerging industry 

issues. NOAA management decided to have the compliance liaison report directly to the 

Northeast office’s Special Agent in Charge. However, having the compliance liaison report 

directly to an official within the OLE field office fosters the appearance that the position’s 

independence may be impaired. 

OIG found a common perception among fishing stakeholders that complaints about 

enforcement brought to the compliance liaison may result in retaliation due to NOAA’s 

established reporting structure. Because of the historically contentious relationship between 

the regulated fishing industry and OLE in the Northeast, NOAA should consider that members 

of the fishing community may not readily reach out to an OLE liaison. 

IV. NOAA’s Workforce Analysis Is One Year Behind Schedule 

In response to our January 2010 report, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere ordered a hiring freeze of criminal investigators until the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) completed an internal workforce analysis. In the report we recommended that 

NOAA reassess OLE’s workforce composition, which was approximately 90 percent criminal 

investigators, to determine whether the ratio of uniformed enforcement officers/inspectors to 

criminal investigators was most effective for accomplishing its mission. The hiring freeze for 

criminal investigators was still in effect as of December 2011, although enforcement officers 

have been hired. 

OLE’s workforce analysis approach consists of short- and long-term actions. The short-term 

actions are in three phases: analysis, recommendation, and implementation. The long-term 

actions have three steps: (1) determine the future NOAA mission requirements for OLE; 

(2) identify the competencies needed to meet OLE’s future mission; and (3) develop a longterm— 1 to 2 years—workforce plan. At the time of our review, NOAA had not begun 

implementing its workforce analysis plan, which was scheduled to begin October 2010. 

In a February 2011 memorandum, NOAA’s Office of Workforce Management recommended 

that OLE (1) consider external factors and business drivers, (2) determine how much emphasis 

to place on ensuring compliance versus investigating noncompliance, and (3) consider acquiring 

staff from other occupational series as an alternate staffing scenario. OLE and management are 

currently reviewing staffing scenarios. 

Based on our review of its draft analysis, it appears that NOAA has considered the roles of the 

U.S. Coast Guard, joint enforcement agreements at the state and local level, complexity of 

violations, and difficulty in obtaining evidence to prove violations. NOAA plans to seek a thirdparty review of its workforce analysis plan prior to implementation. 

FINAL REPORT 3 
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

V. Enforcement Case Management System Data Integrity Issues Have Not Been 

Resolved 

On April 1, 2011, in response to the OIG report, the Enforcement Section replaced the 

Enforcement Management Information System (EMIS) database with JustWare, a web-based, 

commercial, off-the-shelf case-management system. The Enforcement Section demonstrated 

JustWare’s case-tracking capabilities for us as well as its ability to import data from its legacy 

EMIS. NOAA, however, did not address necessary enhancements (discussed below) to OLE’s 

Law Enforcement Accessible Database System (LEADS), identified as inadequate in the previous 

review. 

OLE and the Enforcement Section have made initial attempts to address data integrity issues by 

configuring LEADS to send case file information to JustWare. The electronic sharing of 

information between the two systems, however, is currently one-directional, and users can only 

upload information from LEADS to JustWare once per case. This means that all Enforcement 

Section information documented in JustWare must be manually entered into LEADS. If 

additional actions are taken by OLE staff on a case, the information must also be documented 

manually in both systems. Despite improvements, OLE and the Enforcement Section have yet 

to fully address data integrity issues within and between their two case management systems. 

OIG sampled 144 of 196 cases processed March 16, 2010 (the effective date of higher level 

Enforcement Section reviews) through March 25, 2011, which required enforcement action and 

had gone through higher level reviews by Enforcement Section management. We compared 

Enforcement Section files to OLE’s management system data to determine if information on 

cases and their current status were consistent. Table 1 contains a summary of our tests. 

Table 1. Case Management System Testing Summary 

Region Total Cases Cases Tested 

Information 

Different Between 

OLE and 

Enforcement Section 

Incorrect 

Disposition or 

Status Recorded 

Alaska 13 13 4 1 

Northeast 33 24 0 2 

Northwest 10 8 0 0 

Pacific Islands 27 20 4 4 

Southeast 96 66 1 8 

Southwest 17 13 3 0 

Total 196 144 12 15 

Source: OIG Analysis 

FINAL REPORT 4 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

More than 7 percent of the tested cases did not have consistent information between the OLE 

and Enforcement Section systems, and 11 percent of the cases did not have the correct 

disposition or status recorded.1

 In some cases, details of a subject’s probation that were noted 

in the Enforcement Section’s system were missing from OLE’s LEADS files altogether. We also 

found instances where Enforcement Section-generated information was omitted or where 

incorrect documents were uploaded into LEADS. In several instances, the Enforcement Section 

had marked the status of a case as “open” while OLE had the same case marked as “closed”— 

or vice versa. 

Due to a lack of system and business process controls in LEADS, conflicting or redundant 

information can be entered, producing unreliable system reports. Some regional offices 

provided an abundance of documentation, while others only used comment fields to provide 

limited descriptions of case details. Some offices chose to document the status of a case in the 

case management modules, while others preferred using the incident-tracking module. As a 

result, we saw conflicting case status information within the same cases in LEADS. Also, as 

noted earlier, our request for prior violation status reports produced varying results. Due to 

these weaknesses, management and staff cannot obtain thorough and accurate case history or 

case status information without physically reviewing individual files. LEADS also has no 

automated reminder system or calendar tool allowing agents to track important due dates. This 

forces staff to create discrete and unwieldy methods to manage their workflow and schedules. 

Also missing from OLE’s current processes are reconciliation reviews of data, protocols for 

populating records and system use, and a tracking system to monitor record-keeping timeliness. 

If NOAA does not establish system controls and standard processes for LEADS, OLE 

management decisions will continue to be susceptible to unreliable or inaccurate data. During 

interviews, several OLE staff shared their frustration that some information extracted from 

LEADS is unreliable. They also characterized the system as inefficient and cumbersome. NOAA 

must implement controls and process improvements to ensure information is consistent, 

accurate, and fully integrated between the separate case management systems. If OLE decides 

to continue using LEADS, it must implement a policy on how to use the system and populate 

data. 

VI. OLE and Enforcement Section Policies and Procedures Manuals Need 

 to Include a Consistent Method for Handling Prior Violation Information 

Neither OLE’s nor the Enforcement Section’s manual provides a method for documenting, 

storing, or obtaining prior violation information—an important factor when deciding a penalty 

assessment or sanction. OLE and the Enforcement Section currently do not have processes for 

gathering this information, identifying who will be responsible for the processes, or for ensuring 

that the case management systems are capable of effectively and efficiently tracking prior 

violations. Further, Enforcement Section and OLE staff could not provide consistent evidentiary 

support for their reviews of alleged violators’ prior histories of noncompliance. Each person 

responsible for data analysis had a different approach to obtaining histories of noncompliance 

1 Percentages are based on a 95 percent confidence level. With +/-1.8 percent margin of error, we found that between 8 and 

13 of the 196 case files did not have consistent information. Likewise, with +/-2.7 percent margin of error, we found that 

between 11 and 20 of the 196 case files contained inconsistent disposition or status. 

FINAL REPORT 5 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

for alleged violators. Some used queries, while others relied on memory; query results varied 

depending on query parameters and how staff entered information into OLE’s LEADS or the 

Enforcement Section’s EMIS. Inadequate controls over the consistency of information in these 

files and how information is analyzed restrict the Enforcement Section and OLE from acquiring 

data and performing effective comparative analyses. 

VII. OLE Staff Consistently Attend Fishery Management Council Meetings; 

 Enforcement Section Participation Has Been Limited and Inconsistent 

NOAA stated in its action plan that it would increase communications with the Fishery 

Management Councils by ensuring availability of Enforcement Section attorneys at meetings, 

particularly in the Northeast. We contacted OLE and Enforcement Section staff from four 

offices and attended one council meeting where we also spoke to several of NOAA’s 

enforcement partners from other agencies. We found that OLE staff consistently attended 

council meetings; however, participation by the Enforcement Section was limited in two 

regions. In those regions, OLE staff and Fishery Management Council representatives 

recommended that Enforcement Section attorneys be more accessible to the public at the 

meetings to help answer questions about penalties and sanctions. Some attorneys were 

resistant to more significant involvement, citing limited resources and a reluctance to provide 

legal advice before discussing issues more closely with colleagues. Considering NOAA’s 

communication and outreach strategy, however, it appears that the Enforcement Section is 

missing an opportunity to improve public relations and transparency. While most Fishery 

Management Council meetings have Enforcement Section attorney representation, a more 

involved presence with all the Council meetings would help NOAA provide information on 

enforcement activities and also address specific issues of concern in the fishing community. 

VIII. E-Hotline and ‘Complaints and Compliments’ Web Page Effectiveness 

Is Uncertain 

NOAA has provided several tools for stakeholders and constituents to communicate potential 

enforcement violations or complaints. One such tool, a 24-hour telephone enforcement hotline 

that has been advertised on OLE’s website over the last several years, can be used to report 

possible enforcement violations. OIG discussions with the company managing the calls indicate 

that the hotline experiences regular use; however, use has not increased since our January 2010 

review. The hotline also has not received any calls related to enforcement complaints since our 

January 2010 review. The company that manages the calls said they would route any complaints 

received to the applicable OLE regional office. 

NOAA also created an Enforcement Complaint e-hotline (announced in September 2010) to 

field complaints involving enforcement improprieties by OLE or enforcement attorneys. 

According to a NOAA headquarters’ announcement, this e-mail account, which routes mail 

directly to NOAA headquarters’ internal audit department rather than to OLE or the 

Enforcement Section, aims to “provide fishermen and other members of the regulated 

community a mechanism for raising issues about NOAA law enforcement without fear of 

reprisal.” At the time of OIG’s review, the e-hotline had been operational for more than six 

FINAL REPORT 6 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

months. NOAA received only one complaint regarding enforcement improprieties during this 

time, despite numerous complaints being reported in the media during the same period. NOAA 

should determine whether the e-hotline is delivering the intended results. 

OLE also established a separate “Complaints and Compliments” web page to provide 

information on how the public may offer feedback. This page, linked from OLE’s main web page, 

directs the public to file complaints by writing or telephoning OLE’s Office of Professional 

Responsibility. OLE also provides regional office supervisor’s direct contact information to the 

general public. However, the website does not clearly explain to users that OLE’s process is 

separate from the e-hotline on NOAA’s main website. Thus complainants may unknowingly 

contact OLE, the very organization against which they are complaining, believing there are no 

other options. 

Having different methods of submitting complaints of enforcement improprieties is potentially 

confusing for complainants, particularly since NOAA does not clearly distinguish between the 

separate intake processes. These tools also are not easy to find on their respective websites 

and may not be well-known to the public. Consequently, NOAA should clearly explain to the 

regulated community a consistent process for communicating with NOAA and for filing 

complaints concerning enforcement activities. 

Conclusion 

We have not provided further recommendations. This report represents an interim assessment 

of NOAA’s progress in implementing our January 2010 recommendations. It is intended to 

assist NOAA in effectively completing the action items it identified. 

FINAL REPORT 7 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Summary of Department and OIG Comments 

OIG reviewed NOAA’s response and considered it in preparing this final report. OIG also 

modified the draft report based on information provided by NOAA in subsequent 

communications. 

NOAA’s response indicates general concurrence with our findings. The response provides 

additional updated information summarizing the steps NOAA has taken and plans to take to 

address the challenges we identified and contains a clarification of its position on the placement 

of a compliance liaison under the direct supervision of the OLE Special Agent in Charge in the 

Northeast field office. We have no recommendations in this report; therefore, no action plan is 

necessary. However, we expect to continue a dialogue with NOAA on its progress in achieving 

the remaining action items. 

FINAL REPORT 8 
 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

On June 2, 2009, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere requested 

that OIG review NOAA enforcement programs and operations as a result of concerns raised 

by members of Congress. In January 2010, OIG issued OIG-19887, the first of three reports 

that focused on NOAA’s management of enforcement operations. Two subsequent reports 

were issued in July and September 2010 related to NOAA’s asset forfeiture fund and the 

examination of specific complaints made by the fishing community, respectively. 

This review evaluates NOAA’s efforts to improve its fisheries enforcement programs and 

operations as stated in NOAA’s action plan of March 18, 2010, in response to the January 2010 

report. Another OIG report focusing on the asset forfeiture fund’s management and civil 

penalties collections process will follow at a later date. 

Considering that efforts are still in progress, we established review objectives to provide an 

interim assessment of NOAA's corrective actions and, when possible, determine the 

effectiveness of actions already taken and identify constructive measures to adopt going 

forward. Our review period was February through October 2011. 

We conducted interviews with NOAA staff and external stakeholders and visited four regional 

law enforcement offices. We reviewed established and proposed policies and processes and 

analyzed evidence supporting NOAA's corrective actions. Further, we conducted a stratified 

random sample from 196 cases requiring higher level review as a result of action taken by the 

Enforcement Section. We did not include minor infractions in our sample. 

Our work was performed in accordance with Quality Standards for Inspections (2005) issued 

by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and under authority of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, and Department Organization Order 10-13 

(2006). 

FINAL REPORT 9 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix B: January 2010 Recommendations 

1.	 Ensure that NOAA leadership regularly addresses and provides input to enforcement 

priorities and strategies with regional management, including formal reporting protocols. 

Given the complexities of NOAA’s mission and organization, the industry, and the 

current enforcement climate, its setting of enforcement priorities should involve 

integration and coordination with the headquarters fisheries management and science 

center elements, including the Assistant Administrator for NMFS—to whom OLE 

reports. Further, NOAA should consider reestablishing the position of ombudsman to 

serve as an interface with the regulated industry; such a position was created in May 

1999, but has remained vacant for several years and it is unclear within NOAA whether 

the position still exists. 

2.	 Determine whether NOAA should continue to approach fisheries enforcement from a 

criminal-investigative standpoint, and, if another approach is determined to be more 

appropriate, align OLE’s workforce composition accordingly. In particular, NOAA 

should determine whether the agency has an appropriate balance and alignment of 

uniformed enforcement officers/inspectors and criminal investigators, based on mission 

need. 

3.	 To promote greater transparency, consistency, and oversight in NOAA’s enforcement 

processes and operations, (a) ensure that the Enforcement Section develops, 

implements, and follows an internal operating procedures manual that includes 

comprehensive processes, methods, and justification for determining civil penalty 

assessments and fine settlement amounts; (b) institute a mechanism for higher-level 

review of civil penalty assessment determinations by Enforcement Section attorneys in 

advance (e.g., by panel established within NOAA headquarters); and (c) ensure that 

OLE’s National Enforcement Operations Manual is current, including providing sufficient 

policy guidance on regulatory and criminal authorities and procedures. 

4.	 Ensure follow-through on the Enforcement Section initiatives outlined in its December 

1, 2009, memorandum, intended to foster greater industry understanding of and 

compliance with complex fishing regulations. These include (a) reviewing and making 

appropriate revisions to applicable procedural regulations, civil penalty schedules, and 

associated guidance; and (b) developing an internal operating procedures manual. 

5.	 Ensure that the Enforcement Section and OLE develop, implement, and effectively utilize 

reliable, integrated case management information systems. 

FINAL REPORT 10 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix C: NOAA Action Items 

(As of October 6, 2011) 

NOAA Action NOAA 

Office Status* 

Create Enforcement Section internal operating procedures 

manual (see section I) 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Perform periodic reviews of the Enforcement Section manual Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Implement higher level reviews of Enforcement Section 

enforcement actions (see section I) 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Revise existing NOAA fisheries enforcement penalty schedules Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Revise Enforcement Section penalty policies Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Amend 15 C.F.R., part 904 Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Perform periodic reviews of the OLE manual OLE Implemented 

Develop an outreach strategy OLE Not 

completed 

• Direct resources to improve communications on 

enforcement issues 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

• Facilitate public access to regulatory compliance criteria 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

• Utilize additional compliance assistance measures OLE Implemented 

• Hold a National Enforcement Summit 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

• Increase communications with Fishery Management 

Councils (see section VII) 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

• Provide public access to charging information 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

• Initiate dockside communications OLE Implemented 

• Establish a complaint hotline (e-hotline) (see section VIII) OLE Implemented 

• Hire a compliance liaison (see section III) OLE Implemented 

• Hire an outreach coordinator (see section III) OLE Implemented 

• Evaluate other tools for regular communications with 

communities 

OLE Implemented 

• Establish a Tiger Team OLE Not 

completed 

• Have a third party review performance OLE Not 

completed 

FINAL REPORT 11 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

• Establish ‘Ask an Agent’ and ‘Frequently Asked 

Questions’ portal (see section VIII) 

OLE Not 

completed** 

• Establish a fisheries enforcement e-mail listserv OLE Not 

completed** 

• Utilize social media tools OLE Not 

completed** 

• Examine other cooperative research programs OLE Not 

completed** 

• Train NOAA enforcers in tools to defuse difficult 

situations 

OLE Not 

completed** 

• Begin Northeast fishermen’s forums Enforcement 

Section 

Abandoned 

• Reinstate the position of ombudsman (see section III) OLE Abandoned 

Develop draft regional priorities plan (see section II) OLE Completed 

Develop draft national priorities plan (see section II) OLE Completed 

Finalize implementation of priorities plan (see section II) OLE Not 

completed 

Update OLE internal operating procedures manual (see section 

VI) 

OLE Not 

completed 

Institute OLE hiring freeze OLE Implemented 

Formulate a plan to review the NMFS OLE staffing and 

procedures 

OLE Implemented 

Prepare a workforce analysis plan OLE Implemented 

Conduct the workforce analysis OLE Implemented 

Develop recommendations from the workforce analysis plan OLE Implemented 

Implement the workforce analysis plan OLE Not 

completed 

Develop 1–2-year action plan OLE Not 

completed 

Develop a strategy and schedule to improve management 

information systems (see section V) 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Prepare a monthly combined OLE and Enforcement Section 

enforcement report 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section Implemented 

Provide Enforcement Section case outcome information to OLE 

within 5 business days 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section Implemented 

Replace Enforcement Section’s case management system (see 

section V) 

Enforcement 

Section Implemented 

Configure JustWare to fit Enforcement Section case tracking 

requirements 

OLE / 

Enforcement 

Section Implemented 

FINAL REPORT 12 
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Map system data 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Obtain certification and accreditation 

Enforcement 

Section 

Implemented 

Configure JustWare for docket reviews, sanction assessments, 

and case charging 

Enforcement 

Section 

Not 

completed 

* The status of each action item listed in the table was confirmed through OIG observations, document reviews, 

and discussions with NOAA officials. Only select components of the action plan are referenced in the body of the 

report. 

** Listed as a possible action item and not established as a firm commitment by NOAA officials. 

FINAL REPORT 13 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

UNITED STATES DEPARTME NT OF COMMERCE 

Naelonel Do-nie end Abno • pherlc Adn>l n latreelon 

NATlCJNAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

131 S t.ast-Wesc H.ghwoy 

S dver Spr<ng , M e -y!end 20910 

TH E DIRECTOR 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Ann Eilers JAN 18 2012 

Principal Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Audit and Evaluation 

Office of Inspector General. U.S. Department of Commerce 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Report Entitled, "Follow-up Review of 

NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations " 

This memorandum responds to the Draft report from the Office of Inspector General (010), 

entitled "Follow-up Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations," issued 

on December 9. 20 11 . In a letter accompanying that report, the OJG asked the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to "submit any comments to the draft report by 

January 18. 20 12.'' and that these comments would be considered by the 010 and attached as an 

appendix to the final report. 

Overall. NOAA greatly appreciates the report's recognition that NOAA has "taken some positive 

steps in addressing challenges identified in our reviews." and that "NOAA has made progress in 

completing many key action plan items." The draft report acknowledges many of the important 

changes that NOAA has made since the OlG issued its initial report in January 2010, including: 

(I) requiring high level review of all proposed charges in enforcement cases; (2) finalizing a rule 

placing the burden of justifying a civil penalty at an administrative hearing on NOAA; (3) 

issuing a new national penalty policy; (4) creating a system that documents attorney notes and 

recommendations in all enforcement cases; and (5) developing a comprehensive Enforcement 

Section1 policy and procedures manual. 

NOAA also recognizes and agrees with the report's conclusion that NOAA is still working to 

complete certain action items. For example, the program has taken several major steps on the 

difficult and long path of developing and implementing a plan to change the composition of its 

workforce and improve its ability to meet both its civil and criminal enforcement missions in the 

coming years. Changing the composition of the workforce to better align with enforcement 

priorities and regional needs will understandably take time. and we continue to work diligently 

on this issue. These and other actions that the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) has undertaken 

over the last 2 years reflect the program's commitment to designing and implementing 

widespread changes to its policies and procedures, in response to prior OIG findings and related 

guidance from NOAA leadership. On the basis of these efforts and the direction of current work, 

' NOAA 's General Counsel for Law Enforcement (GCEL), has been reorganized and is now called the Enforcement 

Section. 

@ Primed on Recycled Poper 

TH<:; ASSISTANT AOMlNIS TAATOR 

FOR FISHERIES 

Appendix D: Response to OIG’s Draft Report 

FINAL REPORT 14 
NOAA believes that OLE is making promising and lasting changes in its business processes and 

management practices that have substantially improved the enforcement program's functions and 

perfom1ance. 

NOAA values the contribution that the OIG has made to identifying opportunities to improve 

this important program. To complement the record offered by the OIG's draft report, NOAA 

provides the following detailed comments on each of the report's findings: 

Finding I· NOAA made progress in completing many key action plan items 

NOAA appreciates the report's recognition that NOAA has made considerable progress on a 

wide range of action items, and its acknowledgement that NOAA stated that it would consider 

several of the items listed as action items in Appendix C, but did not commit to implementing 

them. NOAA also notes that the binary labeling of NOAA's results ("implemented" or "not 

completed") does not recognize that some items may be on-going in nature, such as 

implementing an outreach strategy or using social media tools. In these and other areas NOAA 

has taken a number of significant steps, but by their nature these action items will never be 

"completed." Among the more complex and challenging of the remaining actions that have yet 

to be completed, such as finali zing a national priorities plan and implementing a national 

workforce plan, NOAA has made considerable progress to date and is on a solid path toward 

successful implementation. 

Finding 2: Regional and national priorities for OLE have not been finalized 

NOAA began working on national and regional enforcement priorities during the NOAA 

National Enforcement Summit in August 2010. Following the Summit, OLE solicited further 

recommendations for priorities by reaching out to fishery management councils, interstate 

commissions and other stakeholders, and inviting comments to be sent to the Special Agents in 

Charge of NOAA's six enforcement divisions or to NOAA's Office of General Counsel for 

Enforcement and Litigation. On November 8, 20 II, NOAA publicly released a draft of its 

enforcement priorities and invited the public to submit comments through January 9, 2012. 

NOAA will consider these comments and anticipates releasing its final regional and national 

priorities this March. 

Finding 3: NOAA 's placement of the compliance liaison within the Northeast Region raises 

concerns 

NOAA's point of view is that the primary purpose of the compliance liaison is to engage directly 

with fisherman, on the docks and in various public forums, to proactively address compliance 

and law enforcement issues. NOAA believes that the best place to do that is from within OLE, 

and that this placement provides a consistent, unified approach towards handling related 

enforcement and compliance issues. This business model is consistent with other national 

enforcement programs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's "Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance," which pursues enforcement and provides compliance assistance by 

utilizing a variety of enforcement and compliance strategies. Given this design, the compliance 

liaison's function fits squarely within OLE's mandate to work directly and proactively with the 

regulated community. 

2 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

FINAL REPORT 15 
With respect to managing complaints against the Agency, NOAA notes that stakeholders can 

currently use a variety of means to lodge complaints and participate in the management process 

and avail themselves of opportlinities for input, including: (a) filing complaints with the OLE EHotline; (b) filing complaints on the OLE "complaints and compliments" web page; (c) 

providing input at meetings of the Regional Fishery Management Councils; (d) providing input 

to the Marin'e Fishery Advisory Committee and Atlantic highly migratory species advisory 

panels; (e) providing comments on Federal Register notices; and (f) participating in NMFSadministered appeals processes. While perceptions related to the compliance liaison role may 

vary by region, NOAA expects that the numerous mechanisms that can be used to lodge 

complaints, combined with the proactive engagement with the community in the region, will 

over time ensure that the compliance liaison function can be effective and valuable in the 

Northeast region and elsewhere. 

Finding 4: NOAA 's worfdorce analysis is one year behind schedule 

The Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) hac;; taken the OJG recommendations to evaluate staffing 

needs very seriously and has begun implementing an appropriate realignment of personnel that 

will allow OLE to meet both its civil and criminal enforcement missions. The realignment 

process began with the January 20 I 0 freeze on hiring criminal investigators that still remains in 

effect. Since that time, OLE has used resources gained from attrition to increase the number of 

enforcement officers as a means of improving and expanding compliance eflorts. At the time of 

the OIG review in June of2009, the OLE workforce comprised 149 special agents and 15 

enforc.ement officers. OLE's workforce currently has 114 special agents and 21 enforcement 

oflicers, with an additional ten enforcement officers anticipated to be hired in FY 2012. Notably, 

an Assistant Director position was also converted from a special agent position to a non-sworn 

billet. 

OLE's increase in enforcement officers is an initial step in a strategic re-alignment of personnel 

classifications within OLE. This re-alignment represents a significant cultural and operational 

change for OLE, as well as its enforcement partners and other stakeholders. The implementation 

strategy considers this significant paradigm shift and analyzes strategies for retention to ensure 

that OLE is able to meet its missions and mandates in the coming years. 

OLE is developing a draft staffing and deployment plan, as well as a draft competency model 

and training plan. In developing these plans, OLE is using a team approach, utilizing the NOAA 

Workforce Management Office and other Federal partners to review OLE's missions and goals, 

minimum position qualifications, training requirements, and focus on compliance assistance. 

This effort has required a comprehensive review of current and anticipated work tlow, 

workloads, staffing, position classifications, and training requirements. 

Once the draft workforce plans are complete, OLE will use them to inform and develop a near 

term implementation plan, prioritizing vacancies to be filled to achieve an appropriate personnel 

balance. OLE expects to complete the implementation plan by the end of the 3rd quarter of FY 

2012. 

3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

FINAL REPORT 16 
Finding 5: Enforcement case management system data inlef:rily issues have not heen re.mlved 

The draft report correctly notes that on April I, 2011, the Enforcement Section (formerly GCEL) 

began using a new case management system, Justware. OLE's new case management system, 

LEADS II, is still under construction, but OLE anticipates that LEADS II will be fielded later 

this calendar year. As part of that deployment, the Enforcement Section and OLE will work with 

their respective vendors to develop a bi-directional data exchange to operate between the two 

systems. This bi-directional data exchange will significantly reduce the need tor manual 

updating of the systems and should significantly reduce the data integrity issues identified in the 

report. Although the roll out of LEADS IT is expected this calendar year, all software upgrades 

are currently on hold pending completion of corrective security measures in response to the 

findings of the OIG 20 II audit of the NMFS OLE Wide Area Network (WAN). 

Finding 6: OLE and GCEL policies and procedures manuals need 10 include a consistent 

method.for handling prior violation information 

Issuing a written policy to ensure a consistent approach for handling prior violation information 

is a new and positive recommendation. The Enforcement Section will work with OLE to create 

a policy for how to determine and record the priors of a respondent and add the newly developed 

policy to their respective practice manuals. Importantly, this issue should be resolved when 

OLE's new case management system, LEADS II, is brought on-line, and begins a bi-directional 

data exchan.ge with Justware. As described above, although the roll out of LEADS II is expected 

this calendar year, all software upgrades are on hold pending completion of corrective security 

measures. 

Finding 7: OLE staff consistently attend Fishety Management Council meetings; Enforcement 

Section participation was limited and inconsistent 

NOAA believes that this issue was recently resolved and we expect to have coverage by 

enforcement attorneys at all Council meetings going forward. Over the last 2 years, Enforcement 

Section attorneys have consistently attended council meetings with enforcement agenda items for 

the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (FMC), Gulf of Mexico FMC, Caribbean FMC, 

North Pacific FMC, and Western Pacific FMC. In November 2011, the Enforcement Section 

reassigned attorneys to ensure attendance at all New England FMC and Mid-Atlantic FMC 

meetings. Collectively, this level of attendance represents a significant effort given the relatively 

small size and diverse responsibilities of the available staff. The Enforcement Section currently 

has eleven line attorneys responsible for enforcement across the entire country. and there are 

eight Fishery Management Councils which hold 38 or more formal council meetings each year, 

along with a number of additional committee and subcommittee meetings in changing venues 

throughout the country. 

Finding 8: £ -Hotline and 'Complaints and Compliments' web page effectiveness is uncertain 

NOAA appreciates the OIG's observation that the e-hotline has received only one complaint in 

its first 6 months of operation, and that additional effort should be taken to determine whether 

this level of use indicates that the actual volume of complaints is low or that the hotline is not 

being used to register complaints. While NOAA has anecdotal information to suggest that 

4 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

FINAL REPORT 17 
complaints are indeed low, additional research needs to be conducted before either of the two 

conclusions can be established. 

· With regard to the report's observation that the OLE £-Hotline and ''complaints and 

compliments" web page are not well explained and create confusion, NOAA agrees with the 

report's recommendation that NOAA should clearly explain a consistent process for filing 

complaints concerning enforcement activities. NOAA has modified the OLE website to better 

differentiate between the two complaint websites, and make it clear that the E-Hotline is tied 

directly to NOAA. 

5 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

FINAL REPORT 18