type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Public Release\n\n\n\n National Oceanic and\n Atmospheric Administration\n\n\n Improvements Needed in Reporting of\n Performance for NOAA Goals \xe2\x80\x93\n Build Sustainable Fisheries,\n Recover Protected Species, and\n Predict and Assess Decadal to\n Centennial Climate Change\n\n\n Final Report No. FSD-15989-4-0001/September 2004\n\n\n\n\n Office of Audits\n\x0c "",""\'\'\'0.\n\n .l~\n c:\n \'J;( ""\'\\ .\n ~\n UNITED STATES\n The Inspector\n DEPARTMENT\n General\n OF COMMERCE\n\n \\, l!1 ,\n o~<Ii.J\'\n .f Washington~ D.C. 20230\n\n SEP 7 n\n \'1r; ~\n C\'A\xc2\xad\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR:\t Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.)\n Undersecretary of Commercefor Oceans and Atmosphere\n National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n\n\n FROM:\t Johnnie ElFrazie,-" ~.II .\n SUBJECT:\t Improvements e \'edin Reporling of::;:ti:. for \'.\n NOAA Goals uild Sustainable\n Fisheries. Rver ProtectedSpecies. and Predict and\n Assess Dee el to CentennialClimate Change\n Final Report No. FSD-15989-4-0001\n\n This is our final report on our audit of NOAA\'s reporting for the following three\n performance goals and their associatedmeasures in the Department of CommerceFY\n 2002 Performance & AccountabilityReport (PAR): (1) "build sustainable fisheries,"\n (2) "recover protected species," and (3) "predict and assess decadal to centennial climate.\n change."\n\n We detemrined NOAA\'s reporting for all three goals should be improved: in some cases, \'\n\n\n\n\n -- - the titles of measures did not convey a clear impression()fwhat was being assessed; in \xc2\xad\n others, explanations and verificationdetails were incomplete,or supporting\n documentationwas inadequate. Taken together, these weaknesses diminish the\n usefulness of the reported performance information.\n\n To correct these deficiencies, NOAA needs to (1) revise certain performance measures to\n convey clearly what is being assessed; (2) strengthenintemaI controls to ensure that\n reported data is fully supported and adequately explained;and (3) provide appropriate\n detailin PARdiscussionsof theresults.\t . \'\n\n\n\n\n In responding to the draft report, NOAA concurred with all seven,ofthe\n. recommendations. The National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) generally concurred\n with the recomnien~tions and findings, with a few exceptions.,NMFS noted its\n disagreement with certain statementsand conclusions contained within theTepOrt. Also,\n - NMFS identified certain actions taken or planned with respect to the "recover protected \xc2\xad\n\n species" goal. In addition to concwring with recommendations,the Office of Oceanic\n and Atmospheric Research (OAR) identified certain actionstaken or planned to address\n the recommendations within the rePort. \'\n\n\n\n\n Where appropriate, we have modified the report to reflect NOAA\'s response. Within\n appropriate sections of this report we summarize NOAA\'s response ,to our draft report as\n\n\n\n\n \\\n -- -_u -- u_u un-\xc2\xad\n\x0c well as provide comments. NOAA\'s completeresponse is attachedto the report as\n Appendix1.\n\n In accordancewith the Department AdministrativeOrder 213-5,please provide us with\n .\t your actionplan addressing the recommendationsfor our review and concurrencewithin .\n\n 60 days of this memorandum. Should you feel the need.to discussthe content of this\n report and the action plan, please call me at (202)482-4661, or ThomasMcCaughey,\n DireCtor.Financial Statements Audits Division,at (202) 482-6044.\n\n We appreciatethe cooperation and courtesiesyour staff extended to us during our review.\n -\n Attachment\n \'"\n\n cc:\t Dr. William T. Hogarth\n\n Assistant Administrator for Fisheries\n\n\n Richard Rosen\n\n Assistant Administrator for\n\n Oceanic and Atmospheric Research\n\n\n Gregory W. Withee\n\n AssistantAdministrator for\n\n Satellite and Infonnation Services\n\n\n William F. Broglie .\t .\n\n ChiefAdministrative Officer\n\n Mack Cato\n\n Director\n\n Audits and Infonnation Management\n\n\n\n\n\n "\n\n ;\n .~\n\n\n\n\n ~\t v\n\n.\n\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\n\n .\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . .. 1\n\n\n\n :JN1\'R.ODUCTION ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\n OBJECTIVES~SCOPE~AND METIIODOLOGY .................................. 2\n\n\n F,{NDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS 4\n\n "\n\n\n I.\t Performance data for NMFS-supportedgoals-"Build Sustainable\n\n Fisheries" and \'\'Recover Protected Species"was compromised by unclear\n\n measures~weak:proceduresto ensurereliable data, insufficient\n\n documentatio~ and inadequate explanations ... ... ... . .. . ... , on 4\n\n A.\t Performance measures are unclear. "" , ." 4\n\n\n B.\t Assessing performance against a baseline does not\n\n clearly convey NMFS\' progress \'"\'\'\'\'\'\' \'."" ..,... 5\n\n\n c.\t NMFS lacks a rigorous process for ensuringdata reliability 6\n\n\n D.\t Additionaldisclosureswould enhanceusefulness\n\n of results " ...\' .\' "\'"\'\'\'\'\'\' ... \'.\'\'\'\' """ .\' ........ 8\n\n\n E.\t Recommendations ..\' 11\n\n\n F.\t NOAA Response ; ... . 11\n\n\n G.\t OIG Comments \'.""\'\'\'\'\'. " ... 12\n\n\n ,.\n. ll. Performance reportingfor OARINESDISgoal-"Predict\n , and Assess D~dal to Centennial ClimateChange"-needs stropger\n\n oversight to ensure datareliability and enhanceunderstanding.:: ....... 13\n\n\n A.\t Titles of measuresand targets do not precisely characterize\n reported data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .\n 13\n\n\n B.\t Documentation~osupport results shouldbe maintain~\n\n PAR explanationsneed to be clear and accurate, and \'verification\n\n procedures areneeded ............... 14\n\n v\n\n\x0c ,..\n\n"\n ..\n , :\n I\n ..\n -:..\n 91 \'\'\'\' ... .. ... ....,. . .. ... . .. .\'... \'"\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'.\'\'\'\'\' ... ..., . s}uammo;) DIO . \'H\n\n 91 ... "\'" ; ... ~suodsa~ WON \'Q\n 91 "\'\'\'\'\'\' .\'" . .. . .. ... . ..\n SUo9gpU~mm03a~ \'J\n\x0c i !\n, \\ i\n U.S. Department of Comme~ce Final Report No. FSD-15989-4-0001\n Office afInspector General September 2004\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n The Department of Commerce relies on activities of the National Oceanic and\n Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to support the strategic goal, "observe and manage\n the Earth\'s environment to promote sustainable growth."! In its annual Peifonnance and\n Accountability Report (PARJ,2 Commerce details the out~ome ofthese activities against\n NOAA\'s seven goals aI1drelated performance measures. This audit report details our\n findings and recommendations regarding NOAA\'s procedures for collecting, verifying,\n and presenting performance data in the FY 2002 PAR3 for the goals and measures listed\n in table 1.\n Table 1. NOAA Goals and Measures Covered\n With respect to the performance ..\n ~~~s.~~~~\':.:\'/.":"\n goal on building sustainable\n fisheries,NOAA reports .\n Reduce the number of overfished major stocks of fish from 56\n\n measures to assess the sequence\n of events associatedwith\n to 45 by FY 2007\n .\n Reduce the number of major stocks with an "unknown" stock\n status to no more than 98 by FY 2007\n sustaining or rebuilding fisheries . Increase the percentage of plans to rebuild overfished major\n stocks to sustainable levels\n over time. For the performance\n goal on recovering protected Recover\n Protected\n .\n Reduce by ]0 (ftom a FY 2000 baseline of27) by FY 2007,\n species, NOAA reports measures\n reflecting efforts to prevent the\n Species .\n the number of threatened species at risk\n Increase the number of commercial fisheries that have\n\n extinction of species identifiedas\n threatened and endangered4and\n .\n insignificant marine mammal mortality\n Reduce by II (ftom a FY 2000 baseline of29) by FY 2007,\n the number of endangered species at risk of extinction\n to increase the number of\n commercial fisherie-sthatdo not Predict and\n Assess\n .\n .\n Assess and model carbon sources and sinks throughout the\n\n\n\n ..\n United States\n have adverseimpacts on marine Decadal to\n Assess and model carbon sources and sinks globally\n mammals. As for the goal Centennial\n Climate Detennine actual long-term changes in temperature and\n concerning the prediction and precipitation throughout the United States\n Cbange\n assessment of decadalto\n centennial change, NOAA reports\n on the developmentof the observing systemsthat will be used to provide policymakers\n with the scientificinformation and expert assessmentsnecessary to make decisions on\n long-term global and regional enviroiunentalissues. The first two goals are supportedby\n National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)activities;the third gQaIby Office of Oceanic\n and AtmosphericResearch (OAR) and the National EnvironmentalSatellite Data and\n Information Service (NESDIS).\n . \'.\n\n We found the performance measures for ali three goals, as well as associated\n explanations and verification details, in need of improvement. Unclear measures, weak\n\n I The Department\'s other two strategic goals are (I) provide th~ information fuuneworlc to enable the economy to\n\n Qperate efficiently and equitably, and (2) provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness.\n\n 2 Submitted to document compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.\n\n 3 The Department and NOAA reported FY 2002 results only for "predict and assess decadal to centennial change" in.\n\n the Fl 2002 PAR. Therefore, for the remaining two goals, we assessed the FY 2001 data contained in the report as thiS\n\n was the latest performance data available.\n\n 4 Threatened species are species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future while endangered species are\n\n th~se species determined to be in imminen!,danger of extinction:\' \'j ../\n\n\x0c u.s. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-/5989-4-0001\n Officeof Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n prQcedures in place to ensure data reliability,insufficientdocumentation,and inadequate\n explanationsdiminish the usefulness of reportedperfonnance results. Our specific\n findingsare as follows:\n\n .\t Performance data for NMFS-supported goals--"Build Sustainable Fisheries"\n and "Recover Protected Species"-was comp~omised.by unclear measures,\n weak procedur~ to ensure reliable data, insufficient documentation, and\n inadequate explanations\'\n\n As currently worded, clarificationis neededfor certainmeasures under both goals. In\n reportingperformance results,NMFS shouldmakeit clear throughthe title of its measure\n and explanations of results whether reported progressrepresents (1) stocks being fully.. .\n rebuiltforthe goalon buildingsustainablefisheriesor speciesbeingremovedfromthe .,\n categoriZ3:tionof threatened or endangeredfor theperfonnance goal on recovering\n protected species or (2) when a stock or speciesbiomass growth is growing, decliningat\n a reducedrate, or stabilized.\n\n For the goal on recoveringprotected species,measuresincorrectly imply that NMFSis\n assessingits successes at improvingindividualspeciesto the point where they can move\n out of the threatened or endangeredcategories. However,this is not the case.\n NMFSofficialsexplainedthe intentof themeasuresis to - -\n FiSheries\n report .any\n . success. at stabilizingor\n .\t improvingthe status\n .. BuildSustainable\n Reduce the num oor:0f ove rfi~h\'d~\'"major\n\n\n\n\n o\n ""\n 0\t\n\n\n\n\n 0\n of a species even if such improvements do not result ill stoCksoffishfromWto 45\'byN;~1\n the removal of a species from the overfished,threatened, \xc2\xad\n\n or endangered cafegories.\n ..\'=~~::\n With respect to the measure on reducing the numberof\n overfishedmajor stocks supportingthe goal of building\n sustainablefisheries. NMFS infonned us that su~cessis\n th~tened$~~.~t~~\n R~lfae\'bYl~"(~f1U\n of~)J:ly\'Fy~i.\n . fY\'.\'.\n fhe:~m~~.r ".\n \',. .-\xc2\xad\n :\'-- ..:\n\n e"\'\'\'~\'\'\'\'\'e\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'n-oAbc\'at.:lsJ(\'\'\'\xc2\xa5\'\'\'uIf~\'\n I!UCI\';~ II;>!.!51"\'<_""""" - 1.J._.;-o-\'::~~J.....\n .:\n not reported until a stock is fully rebuilt However. . ,-,\',,,\'.\' :...,...:..,.,\n\n\n dependingupon the definition containedin a rebuilding.\n\n plan. a stock could determinedas not "overfished"when it reaches one half of its\n\n rebuildingmass target It would be useful for NMFS-toclarify as to what it considers as\n\n a successwith regard to this measure.\n\n "j\n\n Also, NMFS\' use of baselinesfor these same threemeasures precludes accurate\n.\t assessmentsof its successbecause the Jlumberof speciescategorized as overfished,\n threatened.or endangered-isalways changing. For example,the FY 2000 Baselinefor\n overfishedstocks includednine species that were subsequentlymoved to worse\n categories and does not accountfor three new speciesthat were added after FY 2000.\n For the threatened and end~gered measures, the FY 2000 baseline is incomplete in that\n it does not include the NorthernCalifornia steel head, which was added to the list in June.\n 2000, or accoUIitfor subdivisionswithin speciessuch as the right whale which was split\n into three species. In all three cases. any progressthe agency might make with new or\n subdividedspecies through2007 will not be reflected.\n oj\t j\n\n\n 11\n\x0c US. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-/5989-4-000/\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n In addition, for all measures under both goals, we found that NOAA did not maintain\n appropriate documentation. ill some cases documentation did not support reported data,\n and in others it was simply not available.\n\n Finally, for certain measures wider both goals, we found that discussions in the PAR.\n (I) did not include details essential to understanding the..data and NMFS\' real impact on\n reported outcomes; (2) described verification procedures that ascertained the scientific\n quality of the data rather than the accuracy of the numbers; and (3) did not explain that\n the data was cumulative.\n\n ..\t Performance reporting for OARINESDIS goal-"Predict and Assess Decadal\n to Centennial Climate Change"-needs stronger oversight to ensure data\n reliability and enhance understanding\n\n - Improvementsare also neededin the reportingof the perfonnance measUfessupporting\n this long-tenn climate change goal. The measure for assessing and modeling carbon\n sources and sinks throughout the United States includesglobal data collected ITomocean\xc2\xad\n going vesselswhile the measure dealingwith long term changes in temperature and\n precipitationdoes not conveythat data is collectedITomthe contiguousUnited States\n only (i.e., excludes Alaska and Hawaii). Targets for the two carbon sources measures\n define successby the number of data collectionsites "established,"but the term\n "established"has not been strictlydefined, so countedsites could be at differentstages of\n development.\n\n Like NMFS, neither OAR nor NOAAIIlaintainedadequatesupportingdocumentationfor\n two of the three measures. ill the case of the measurerelating to detennining actuallong\xc2\xad\n term changesin temperature andprecipitationthroughoutthe United States, supportwas\n not maintainedbut the results could quicklybe recalculated. In the case of the carbon\n sources measures, a recalculationof the data showedthat NOAA had in fact\n underestimatedits progress for both in the PAR.\n\n Explanationsprovided for the carbon sourcesmeasurescontained errors as well: as it\n waSnot based on the most currentinfonnation, the discussion of the U.S. measure\n incorrectlyidentified the specificocean tracks and profiling sites to be used by NOAA\n for data collection. The globalmeasuredisclosedthe establishm~ntof one site, but failed\n to report that two others were operational. ,;.\n.\n And finally,NOAA lacks adequateproceduresat the program-levelfor coI1\'9bOrating the\n accuracyof information presentedin the PAR, a deficiencywhich pennitted the reporting\n of incorrectdata. And, as was the case with the NMFS-supportedgoal, verification\n approachesdescribed for the OARINESDISmeasuresin the PAR are not appropriate,in\n that they are methods for ascertainingthe scientificquality of the data rather than\n ensuringthe accuracy of reportednumbers.\n\n Managementattention is neededto ensure that the titles of performance measures are\n consistentwith what is reported,supportingdocumentationis maintained, and that\n\n\n 1IJ\n\x0c ,, II I\n\n V.S. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-J5989-4-0001\n Office of Inspector General . September1004\n\n sufficient detail is contained within the PAR to explainthe results and the reliability that\n can be placed on the data.\n\n In responding to the draft report. NOAA concUlred with all seven of the\n , recommendations. The National Marine FisheriesService\'(NMFS) generally concurred\n with recommendations and the fmdings,but notedits diS!lgreementwith certain\n statements and conClusi~nscontainedwithin the report. Specifically,NMFS clarified\n that for the purpose of ieporting success underthe measurerelating to \'reducingthe\n number of overfished stocks, that success is not reported until a stock is fully rebuilt For\n the measures relating to reducing the numberof threatenedand endangered species,\n NMFS disagreed with our conclusionsthat FY 2001performancereporting was not\n supported. Also, NMFS identifiedcertain actionstaken or to be taken with respect to the\n "recover protected species" goal. The Officeof Oceanicand Atmospheric Research \'"\n (OAR) concurred with our recommendationsand identifiedcertain actions taken or\n planned to address the recommendationswithinthe report. .\n\n\n\n\n Weare encouraged by actions NOAA claims it has taken or planned to address the\n recommendations within the report and awaitthe actionplan to address the\n recommendations. Where appropriate,we have modifiedthe report to reflect NOAA\'s\n response. Within the appropriatesectionsof the report. we summarizeNOAA\'s response\n to our draft report as well as provide comments. NOAA\'s completeresponse is attached\n to the report as Appendix I.\n\n\n\n\n ,: ,\n.\n \'. .\n\n\n\n\n v\n\n\n IV\n\x0c ,\n i\n I I .\n\n US. DeparUnent oj Comn,,;, .:e . Final\'lh..yort !fa. FSD-/5989-4-0001\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\'s mission is to describe and\n predict changes in the Earth\'s environment, and conserve and manage the nation\'s coastal.\n and marine resources.\' .\n - .\n The DepartmentofCo~erce relies on NOAAactivities to support the strategic goal,\n "observe and manage the Earth\'s environmentto promote sustainablegrowth:,5\n Commercereports on the outcome of these activitiesin its annualPerformanceand\n AccountabilityReport (PAR), which documentscompliance with the Government\n Performanceand Results Act of 1993(GPRA). GPRA seeks to improve the\n effectiveness,efficiency, and accountabilityof federalprograms by requiring agenciesto\n set performancegoals and to annually assesstheir success at achievip.gthem. NOAA "\'.\n maintains seven performance goals:\n\n . Buildsustainablefisheries.\n\n . . Sustainhealthycoasts.\n\n . Recoverprotectedspecies.\n\n . Advance short-term warnings and forecasts.\n\n . Implement seasonal to interannual climate forecasts.\n\n . Predict and assess decadal to centennialchange.\n\n . Promote safe navigation.\n\n NOAA uses measures within each goal to assessthe programs and activities of its five\n .line offices: the National Oc~ Service;NationalMarine F\'isheriesService (NMFS);\n Office of Oceanic and AtmosphericResearch(OAR);National WeatherService; and\n NationalEnvironmental Satellite,Data, and InformationService (NESDIS). From this\n assessment,NOAA generatesthe performanceresultSreported in the PAR. Congress,the\n Office of Managementand Budget (OMB),and other decision makers can use this\n informationto evaluate the federal government\'sinvestment in these programs; agency\n officialsuseit to improveprogramoutcomes. .\n\n\n However, performanceresults ena~lesuch assessmentand improvement only to the\n extent that the data reported is reliable, and GPRAtherefore requires agencies to verify\n and validate performance data to ensure its reliability. The Gene~l AccountingOffice\n (GAO) bas defined verification as the "assessmentof data completeness, accuracy, and\n consistency,and the related quality controlpractices." It defines validatioll as the\n "assessment of whether the data is appropriatefor the performance measure...\'.6\n\n\n\n\n S The Department\'s other two strategic goals are (I) provide the information framework to enable the economy to\n operate efficiently and equitably, and (2) provide inITastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness.\n 6 U.S. General Accounting Office, July 30, 1999. Performance Plans: Selected Approachesfor Yerificaiion and\n Validation of Agency Perfonnanre Information. GAO/GGD-99-139. Washington D.C.: U.S. General Accounting\nv Office.\n\n\n I\n\x0c I\n US. DepaHment of Co",. .\'Ce Final nepo,.} No. FSD-I5989-4-0001\n Office\' of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n This audit report, the third on NOAA performancemeasures/ details our fmdings and\n . recommendationsregarding NOAA proceduresfor collecting,verifying, and presenting\n performance data for three goals-build sustainable fisheries, recover protected species,\n and predict and assess decadal to centennial change.\n\n -\n Table I. NOAA Goals and Measures Covered\n -- -. -.\n As presentedin table 1, the .:fert:or\'man Assomted Mts\n Departmentreported tbfee\n performancemeasures for each of\n Goals\n Build . Reduce the\n -. .\' \'. - -. \'\\".;-(4t:Nn\'lf\n number of overfisbed major stocks of fisb from\n\n thesegoalsin the Department\'s\\\n FY 2002 PAR. 8 With respect to\n Sustainable\n Fisheries\n . 56 to 45 by\n Reduce the\n stock status\n FY 2007\n number of major stocks with an "unknown"\n to no more than 98 by FY 2007\n\n the performance goal on building . Increase the percentage of plans to rebuild overfisbed. major\n stocks to sustainable levels ,\n sustainablefisheries, NOAA\n reports measures to assess the Rover . Reduce by 10 (fiom aFY 2000 baseline of27) byFY 2001,\n Protected\n sequenceof events associated the number oftbreatened species at risk\n with sustaining or rebuilding\n Spedes . Increase the number of commercial fisberies that bave\n insignificant marine mammal mortality\n fisheriesover time. For the\n . Reduce by II (nom a FY 2000 baseline of29) by FY 2001,\n performancegoal on recovering the number of endangered species at risk of extinction\n protectedspecies, NOAA reports\n measuresreflecting efforts to\n Predict and .\n Assess and model carbon sources and sinks throughout the\n\n\n\n ..\n Assess United States\n preventthe extinction of species Decadal to Assess an$:!model carbon sources and sinks globally\n identifiedas threatened and Centennial\n Determine actual long-term changes in temperature and\n Climate\n endangered9and to increase the Change\n precipitation throughout the United States\n number of commercial fisheries\n that do not have adverse impacts. A1;for the goalconcerningthe prediction and\n assessmentof decadal to -centennialchange, NOAAreports on the development of the\n observingsystems that will be used to provide policymakerswith the scientific\n informationand expert assessmentsnecessary to make decisions on long-term global and\n regional environmental issues. The first two goalsare supportedby NMFS activities;the\n third goal by OAR and NESDIS. .\n\n OBJECfIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\n - Our purposewas to (I) assessthe collection and reportingofFY 2002 performance\n infonnation\n . in documentationsubmittedto meet GPRArequiremynts,and\n I (2) detennine\n whetherNOAA\'s internal controlsare sutJicient to ensurethat data is accurate,\n consistent,and reliable. The Departmentand NOAAreported FY 2002 results only for\n "predict and asSe8$decadal to centennialchange~\'in theFY-2002 PAR bec~e-data for\n 7 National Oceonic and Atmospheric Administration: ImprovemenJs Needed in the Reporting of Performance\n Measures Related to ProrrwtingSaft Navigation and Sustaining Healthy Coasts, Audit Report No. FSD-14998-3-OOO1,\n FebruaI)\' 2003, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Improvements Needed in the Reporting of\n Peiforl1U11WeMeosures Related to Goals for Advancing Short-Term Warnings and Implementing Seasonal to -\n Interannual Climate Forecasts; Audit Report No. FSD-15643-3-OOO1, September 2003\n 8 The Department and NOAA reported FY 2002 results only for "predict and assess decadal to centennial\n change" in the FY 2002 PAR. Therefore, for the remaining two goals, we assessed the FY 2001 data\n\'" contained in the report as this was the latest perfonnance data available.\n !IThreatened species are species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future while endangered species are\n those species determined to be in imminent danger..<>fextinction.\n\n\n 2\n\n\n\n\n _u- \xc2\xad\n __m- _n-- -- -- - _u--_U_U U_- ---\xc2\xad\n\x0c u.s. Department of UJmmerce Final Report No. FSD-/5989-4-000J\n Officeof Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n the remaining two was unavailable. Therefore,for those goals, Vfeassessed the FY 2001\n data contained in the report. (FY 2002 results for these two goals were subsequently\n provided in the FY 2003 PAR.)\n\n To pursue our audit objectives, we reviewed pertinent federal guidance and legislation, 10\n interviewed NOAA officials responsible for generating, J..Ilaintaining,and reporting\n perfonnance data; identjfied and tested internal controls; subjected data to validation and\n verification procedures including the recalculation of reported results; and evaluated the\n clarity and usefulness of explanations provided for each measure in the FY 2002 PAR.\n We further tailored our audit proceduresto each measure underreview, as presentedin .\n\n table 2. We did not test the reliability of computer-generated data for the performance\n measures, as such data was not essential to our audit objectives.\n ,,\'\n\n Table 2. OIG Audit Procedures by Measure\n .\'\n .Xt~~r~:.. ;,~e\'$J~~AWJtPr~~~Y~$ ." . ::\'~".~:;;~:\';.\n . Reduce the Dumber.r onrfisbed major stocks or fish rrom 56 to 45 by FY 2007.\n We reviewed supporting documentation for 12 stocks to ensure that they were\n appropriately categorized as overfisbed.\n . Reduce the Dumber .rmajor steds witb an "unknown" stock status t. DO\n Build Sustainable Asheries more than 98 by FY 2007. We compan:d the basenurnberofunmown and\n undefined stocks to the list of stocks declared ovcrlisbed to ensure thaI no\n duplication existed. We also detennined the number of major stocks that are\n undefined.\n . lacrease tbe pen:eatage of plans to rebuild overfisbed major stocks to\n sustaiaable levds. We recalculated the reported results for FY 2001. Also, we\n obtained supporting documentation 10support the status of ft:building plans for\n overlisbed major stocks. .\n .\t Raluce by JO (from a FY 2000 basdine of 1.7) by FY 2001, tbe number of\n tbreatftled species at risk of extinction. We reviewed supportjng biomass\n documentation for the species claimed as improved for the reporting period.\n . Increase the number ohommerc:ial f!SlIeries that bave insignificant mariae\n\n Recover Protected Species mammal mortality. We reviewed supporting documentation for the claimed\n\n reductions in marine mortality.\n\n .\t Raluc:e by II (from a FY 2000 basdine Df 29) by FY 2007, tbe number of\n eadangered species at risk Df extinctioa. We reviewed supporting biomass\n documentatioo for the species claimed as improved fOTthe period reported.\n\n\n .\t Assess and modd urbon SOUrtes and sinks tbrougbout the Uuited States. We\n reviewed documentatioo supporting the identified tracks, and researched other means\n for collecting this data.\n . Assess and modd carbon sources aad sinks globally. We ft:viewcddocumentation\n Predict and Assess Decadal to supporting the identifiedsites and researcbedalternative means for collectingthis data.\n Centennial Change . DetermiDeaduallon:-t- c:baagesia temperatareand predpitatioa tbnKIg""t\n the United States. We reviewed lhemcthodology for calcuJating contiguous U.s.\n temperature and precipitation 1mIds, and obtaincd\'a;bigb-Jcvel undemanding of tile\n computer program used in this calculation.\n\n\n .\'\n We conductedour fieldwork ftom June 2003 to February 2004 at NOAA headquartersin\n Silver Spring,Maryland. \'Weperformed this audit in accordancewith Government\n Auditing Standards issuedby the ComptrollerGeneral of the United States, and under\n.\t authority of the InspectorGeneralAct of 1978,as amended,and Department\n Organization Order 10-13, dated May 22, 1980, as amended.\n\n 10 GPRA; the CbiefFinancial Officers AcI; OMB Circular A-123, Management Accountability and Control; OMB .\n\n Circular A-II Part 6, PfeparaJion and Submission of Strategic Plans. Annu4/ Peiformance PlanS, and Annual\n\nv\tProgram Peiformance..Reports; and GAO v\n Standards for Internal Centrol in the federal Government.-\'\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0c d- .- -- - - .- -- -- - -- \xc2\xad\n\n\n\n\n U.S.Department of Commerce Final ReportNo. FSD-15989-4-0001\n\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\n I.\t Performance data for NMFS-supported goals--"Build Sustainable Fisheries"\n -and"Recover Protected Species"-was ~ompromised by unclear measures,\n weak procedures to ensure reliable data, insufficient documentation, and\n inadequate explanations\n\n The Department and NOAA listed threeperfonnancemeasures for the performance goal\n "Build SustainableFisheries" and three for the performance goal "Recover Protected\n - Species"in theFY 2002PAR. However,becauseFY2002resultswerenotreportedin\n the FY 2002 PAR for any of the measures,we assessed FY 2001 results (FY 2002 data\n was unavailable as the issue went to press,but was subsequentlypresented in the FY\n 2003 PA!?). ...\n\n We found that the collection and reportingof NOAA\'s performance information for both\n of the goals can be improved. Specifically,we found titles of certain performance\n measures unclear,management proceduresto ensure the reporting of reliable data to be\n weak, as well as associated explanationsandverification details to be incomplete and at\n times inaccurate. The deficienciesdiminishthe usefulness of the data.\n\n A. Performance measures are unclear\n\n GOAL: BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES\n Major stocksidentified asoverfishedareonesin\n I-.a. Reduce the number of overlished which thebiomass of a given fishery\'s stock is\n if ~jd~ ~tOcks\n FY.$0-1\n offtshfrom 56 to 45 by below a prescribed threshold. With respect to this\n perfonnancemeasure, NMFS stated that stocks are\n eliminated as an "overfished major stock" onlywhen a stock is fully rebuili in accord\n with the Magnuson-StevensAct requirementsof an approved rebuildingplan. However,\n NOAA stated that depending upon the definitioncontained in a rebuildingplan, a stock\n could be determined as not overflshedwhenit reaches one half of its rebuildiDgbiomass\n target. As such, NMFS has set a high standardfor reporting results and it does not\n articulate all of its progress towardsrebuildingstocks. Officials agreedthat the measure,\n as currently worded, does not adequatelyconveythe full range ofNMFS\' efforts in.this\n area. Suggestionsfor addressingthis issuecouldbe to include ad~itionaldisclosures\n. specifying the fact that results for the measurereflect only fully rebuilt major stocks and\n that progress is being made with respect to otherstocks. \xc2\xad\n \'.\n GoAL: RECOVER PROTECTED SPECIES\n\n ,: a.Reduceby 10(fI\'oma FY 2OQOba~elineof 27) by FY 2007, the\n nu,mberof threate~ ~ies at riskof extinction Threatened species are\n species likely to become\n .. c. Reduce by 11 (froma FY 2000 baseline of 29) byFY2007, the endangeredin the\n . nilmber of endangered. species at risk of extinction\n foreseeable future while\n endangeredspecies are\n those .~ecies detennined.Jo be in imminentdangerof e~tinction. NMFS officials\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0c u.s. Department o/Commerce Final Report No. FSD-I5989-4-0001\n Officeof Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n explainedthat they are reportingtheir success for thesemeasures at stabilizing or\n improvingthe status of a species,actions that couldultimately lead to their removal from\n "the threatened and endangeredlists in future years. But, the titles of the measures suggest\n otherwise.\n\n The two measures improperlysuggest that reportedresu~tsrepresent the delisting of\n threatenedand endang~ed species-that is, an improvementin their status to a nonrisk\n category. ill fact, it often takes 15to 30 years to improvea species to the point of\n delisting as either threatenedor endangered. NMFSofficialsinformed us that in the past\n 30 years, only one species-the California grey whale-bas been delisted, and none are\n likely to be delisted in the near future. None of the speciesreported as successes for FY\n 2001 (two threatened speciesand three endangeredspecies)are at the point of being\n \',,"\n delisted.\t\n\n For threatened species, the reportedresults indicatedthat the number of threatened\n species at risk.dropped by two iti FY 2001. However,the two species claimed-the\n Johnson\'s Sea grass and SnakeRiver Fall Chinook-have not been delisted. While there\n has been some improvement(not enough for delisting)in recent years with the Snake\n River Fall Chinook, the threatenedstatus of the Johnson\'s Sea grass has not changedin\n 28 years.\n\n For the endangered speciesmeasure,reported resultsindicatedthat three were ready for\n delisting-the Sriake River sockeye,Kemp\'s Ridleysea turtle, and Sacramentowinter\n river run salmon. However,the Snake River sockeyepopulation decreased in FY 2001,\n and that of Kemp\'s Ridley sea turtlesremained constant Finally, while adult saImo!l\n retuining for the Sacramentowinter river run salmonhas generally been increasing since\n 1996,the species has not improvedto the point of delisting.\n\n Again, for these measures, NMFS officials explainedthat they are reporting their success\n at stabilizing or improving the status of a species,actionsthat could ultimately lead to\n delisting in future years. But this is not what the wordingof the measures indicates they\n are tracking. Officials agreedthat the measures, as currentlyworded, do not agreewith\n what they are actually reporting.\n\n B.\t Assessing performance against a baseline does Dotcle~rly convey NMF\'S\'\n. progress ;,\n\n\n While using baselines to demonstratesuccess againsta specificuniverse of.~temscanbe\n instructive,NMFS\' use of this conventionfor measuresunder both goals preCludes\n effective assessments of its successbecause the defineduniverse is not stable but is\n always changing. NMFS officialsnoted that baselinesenable them to track progresswith\n a particular species. However,the FY 2000 baselinedoesnot account for subsequently\n declared overfished stocks, threatenedspecies, or endangeredspecies. Consequently\n results for these subsequentlyidentifiedspecies would not be represented in reported\n results for these measures. Nor do the current measuresaccount for subdivisions within\n specIes.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c __n n-_n- ----------\xc2\xad\n\n\n\n\n u.s. Department ofCommf:.. Final R.. t No. FSD-/5989-4-0001\n Office of Inspector General September2004\n\n GOAL: BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES\n\n a. R-educe the number 0f ove rfis hed\n -\t 2000 baseline NMFS establishedfor this\n The FY \'..\n majorstock.soffishfrom56 to45 by measurecontamedmnestocksthatwerealready\n FY-ZOO7 in worse categories (i.e., threatened or\n endangered), one stock in which fishing was\n halted completely, as well as one stOCkthat did not fall ~der NMFS\' jurisdiction. The\n nine stocks were reclas~ified under the Endangered Species Act during FY 2001. Also,\n six new stocks were added to the overfished category: the redfish, white hake, black sea\n bass, greater ambeIjack, darkblotched rockfish, and widow rockfish. Because NMFS\n measured its achievements against stocks identif1ed in FY 2000,\' any successes against\n these six species would not be reflected in the reported performance data for this\n measure. One possibility to address this issue would be to modify the performance\n measure as a percentage of the baseline. Such a modification, which would evaluate the\'..\n net progress over time, would create a measure that would provide meaningful\n information while still accommodating the addition or removal of stocks.\n\n GOAL: RECOVER PROTECTED SPECIES\n\n a. Reduce by 10 (froma FY2000 baseline 0(27) by FY\n Again because of a shifting\n 2007, the number of threatened species at risk of baseline, NMFS reportedresults\n extinqion for these measures do not reflect\n c. Reduce by 11 (from a FY 2000 baseline of 29) by FY any progress made with species\n 2007, the number of endangered species at riskof extinction\t declared threatened or\n endangeredin years afterthe\n establishmentof a baseline. For\n example, the shift in categorization froma speciesconsideredthreatened to endangered\n would not be reflected in results. ffventhe FY.2000baseline wasincomplete: NMFS\n declared theNorthern California steel head threatenedin June 2000, but this wasnot\n added to the 2000 baseline. fu addition,the right whale, whichwas in the baseline,was\n subsequentlysubdivided into three species,but the baseline and performance data only\n Consideredit as a single species. NMFS agreedwith this finding and noted in its\n response that the measures could be modifiedto measure a percentage of the baseline.\n\n c. NMFS lacks a rigorous process for ensuring data reliability\n\n NMFS lacks sufficient procedures over data collection,documen~tion, verification,and\n reporting to ensure the reliability of reportedperformance,and reporting entities seem to\n.\n set their own standards and procedures for determiningwhat data to submit andwhen.\n This lack of consistencym~ that datawithinmeasures is not strictly comparablein\n teITI1Sof how, why, and when it was collected,or what basisjustifies its inc1usion. \xc2\xad\n\n GOAL: BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES\n\n Clear criteriafor defining accomplishments are Ulcking. The Magnuson StevensAct\n requires eight fishery management councilsto developrebuilding plans for stocksthat\n - c. Increasethepe~tage of plansto havebeendeclaredoverfished.The councilshave\n rebUildOV~ majorstocksto 18 months to work with NOAA, state and local\n sustainable levels\n\n\n 6\n\x0c - - --- - --- --- ---------------------\n\n\n , i\n u.s. Department ojCom\'nerce Finall\\eport No. FSD-J5989-4-000J\n\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n\nofficials, and other interested paJiiesto developthe plans. The plans are then submitted\nto NOAA for approval and implementation. NOAA would countthe plans in supportof\nthe measure once it has approved them and they are in place. Sometimes,however,a\nplan is struck down by court order or becomesoutdated in responseto changing\nconditions and is therefore in need\'of revision. NOAA does not remove such plans from\nits achievedresults under the measurebecause,NMFS explained,protective measures\nsuch as fishing limitatio..nscontainedin the earlier plan remain in place. Further limiting\nthe usefulness of reported data is the fact that the councils use differentcriteria for\ndeciding when to report a plan as completed. One council, for example,reported plans\nthat had been revoked by court order. Anothercounted as implementeda plan for\nrebuilding the canary rockfish before the officialplan had been approved, although\nmeasures to preclude overfishing had been put in place. Other councils only counted\nplans that had been approved and implemented. \'\n\n\n\n\nFor perfonnance data to be useful, the criteriafor its inclusionmust be clear and\nconsistently applied. To ensure such clarityand consistency,NOAA should strictly\ndefine the stage at which a rebuildingplan can be reported by the councils ~d should\nonly count those plans that meet this criteria. \' \xc2\xad\n\n\n\n\nAdequate supporting documentation not maintained.\nNMFS couldnot initially provide documentationfor any a. Reduce the number of ovem.shE~<hn~pr\n stocks offish from56 to 451:1yFYz007\nof the threemeasures supportingthis goal. As such,\nNMFS had to search for supportingdocumentation. It b. Reduqe the nU,mberof major s.t~ with\nsubsequentlyproduced adequate documentationfor al\'!.uli~no.WO"stoGkstatus, w\'oonft)\xc2\xa3e tI.1an\n 98 by FY z007 \xc2\xad\nmeasures a and b, but not for c. As a result,we were able\nto recalculatereported results for measuresa and b, but\nnot measure c. - C\'~~;::~~t:~~ .\nData coUectionnot confined to set timeframe. For all three measures,NMFS had not\nset a date beyond which it would no longeraccept data for inclusionin the FY 2001PAR.\nNMFS officials explained that data receivedmonths after September30, 2002 and prior\nto issuance of the PAR was counted as received,without regard to fiscal year-end or other\ndeadline-which means results for the measuresdo not cover the exact same duration\nand therefore are not strictly comparable. In the absence of adequatesupporting\ndocumentation,we could not determinehow results might have differed had a cutoffdate\nbeenenforced. >,\n\nAdditionally,NMFS did not discloseits open-endedcollectionpolicy in thy PAR or the\npotential ramifications on the data\'s reliability.\' Subsequentto our review, NMFs\nestablisheda unifonn cutoff date of August 1 for FY 2001 datato be included in theFY\n2003 PAR. We commendNMFS for its action and suggestthat this date be disclosedin\nthe PAR so that readers know the data does not span the entire fiscal year.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\x0c - ------------\n - - -- - --_.\xc2\xad\n\n \\\n u.s. Pep4rtment ofCom,,,~rce Final Report No. FSD-/5989-4-0001\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n GOAL: RECOVER PROTECTED SPECIES\n\n\n Reported results not supported.\n On January22,2001, implementingregulationsfor\n b. Increa~e the number of CQf11mercialthe largewhaletakereduction plan went into effect.\n fish~Jies that h~ve ins;gnific3nt\n marine .marfima1 mortality. Accordingto NOAA, the regulations required\n conservationmeasures in conunercial fisheries\n based on several years"1>f speciesmonitoring, gearresearch, and public dia10gueto\n determine that this measurewould reduce interactionsin the mid-Atlantic lobstertrap-pot\n fishery and drift gillnet fishery. We were told that once measures are implemented,it\n takes several years of monitoringto ensure they are effective. NMFS claimed that for FY\n 2001it was successfulin helping2 fisherieskeepmarinemanunalmortalityat "\n insignificant levels. However,NMFS officialsexplainedthat such prompt resultswould\n be unlikely given that the relatedregulations had been in effect for only part of the fiscal\n year. And we learned that duringFY 2002 and FY 2003, marine mammals (i.e.,right\n whales) continued to suffer significantmortalitylevels after getting caught in fishing\n gear.\n\n Supporting documentatwn not maintained. For all three measures, NMFS couldneither\n initially provide support for FY 2001 results nor identifywho calculated them. NMFS\n staff had to go back and reviewrecords to detenninewhich particular species were\n included in the reported results. Acknowledgingthe problem, NMFS officials agreedthat\n parties responsible for generatingand reportingfutureperformanceresults shouldsign\n their reports and maintain appropriatedocumentation.\n\n D. - Additional disclosures would enhance usefulness of results\n\n NOAA had the opportunityto clarify confusionover its performance data in the.\n "Explanation of Measure" sectionsof the PAR, but did not do so. For each of the\n measures we reviewed, pertinentdetails that wouldenhanceunderstanding were not\n included. In addition, the verificationmethods describeddid not provide the appropriate.\n quality check of the data.\n\n GOAL: BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES\n ..\n NMFS\' role in reported outcomes not sufficiently explained. Fo; all three measures\n.\n supporting this goal it is difficult,if not impossible,to determine the extent to which\n NMFS\' actions actuallyhad an impact, or whetherreportedimprovements resulted from\n natural phenomena. Without.qualifyingNMFS\' role in achieving the results, the data~s\n usefulness as a measure of the agency\'sperfonnance is limited.\n\n Described verification procedures are inadequate. For all three measures, the\n verification procedures described-stock assessmentsand peer reviews-are methodsfor\n ascertainingthe scientific qualityof the data rather than the accuracy of the numbers.\n NMFS needs.to detail its methodologyfor ensuringthe data accurately reflects its\n progress toward meeting perfonnancegoals.\n\n\n 8\n\x0c ---\t n-\xc2\xad\n\n\n\n I\n I\n u.s. Department a/Commerce Final Report No. FSD-J5989-4-0001\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n\n Key details omitted. For FY 2001, NMFS reportedhaving reduced the number of\n a.Reducethe ~umoor ofoverfished overfishedstocks to 4~ne short of the goal\xc2\xad\n majorstoclcsoffishfrom56to45 by and noted thatits Qriginal baseline of 56 stocks had\n F-Y2007. been reducedby 10 that no longer met overfishing\n .\n criteria. Not mentionedis the important fact that 9\n of the 10were reclassi9ed because their statushad deteriorate<LNMFS continuedto\n report an FY 2002 target of 55. No explanationof this is offered in the PAR.\n\n Differences in data not explained. The measuretracks NMFS\' progress in asseSsingthe\n status of major stocks against defined levels of\n b. Reduce the numbefof\t major stocks healthybiomass. For FY 2001, NMFS claimed it,\n with an .unkrioWn.stotk .status to no reducedthenumber of stocks whose statuswas \',\'\n mote than 98 by FY 2007.\n unknownto 120. However,biomass had not been\n deijnedfor 15 ofthese stocks-which means they\n were not candidates for assessmentyet and thus were not comparablewith the remaining\n 105stocks in the group. Because greater effortis needed to determine the health of\n stocks for those without a definedbiomass,NMFS should differentiatethe two in its\n reportingor in its explanation of the measure.\n\n Cumulative nature of results not disclosed. Accordingto NMFS officials, the results for\n these two measures reflect progress\n a.\t Reduce the number of overfished major stocks against a base year (FY 2000). But\n of fish from 56 to 45 by FY 2007. nowhere in the explanationsis it noted\n . c. Increasethepercentag~ofplansto r~uild\n - - overfished major stOCksto sustaihable levels.\n that the data-iscumulatiye, leavingthe\n reader to assume the results represent\n NMFS\' success for FY 2001 only.\n\n Our audit tests confinned that the data was cumulative,and in some cases went beyond\n the base year: for the measure on increasingthepercentage of plans to rebuild overfished\n major stocks to sustainable levels,for example,we found that rebuilding plans for the red\n grouper and black sea bass were implementedin 1990 and 1996,respectively, yet NMFS\n took credit for them in FY 2001.\n\n GOAL: RECOVER PROTECTED SPECIES\t ."\n"\n As with the goal on building sustainablefisheries,we found that for all three measures\n undertheprotectedspeciesgoal,NMFS\'roleinreportedoutcomesis not sUfficiently\xc2\xad\n explainedand described verificationproceduresinappropriatelyfocus on scientificdata\n qualityratherthandataaccuracy. \xc2\xad\n\n Key details omitted. We noted that key detailswere omitted ftom the discussionof the\n .commercialfisheriesmeasure: the explanation\n - b. Irx;rea:se the number of Ci)ffiffiercial\n fisheliesthat have insignificant marine statesthat \'\'By definition, insignificantlevels\n mammal mortaflty. meanthat total mortality or rate of death is no\n morethan 10 percent of the maximumnumber\n v\n\n\n 9\n\x0c US. Department ofComm~,.ce Finall\\~p()rt No. FSD-I5989-4-o\'OO/\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n of marine mammals that could die from human-caused mortality.\xc2\xbb The meaning of this\n statement is unclear, and no infonnation is provided to qualify the potential population\n killed by "human-caused" events. NMFS officials told us that this is a "working\n definition," which is likely to change significantly in the future. However, this does not\n preclude the need for clarification, and the fact that the defmitipn is subject to change\n should also be disclosed.\n\n Cumulative nature of results not disclosed. NMFS claimed 2 successes with threatened\n speciesfor FY 2001: the Johnson\'s sea grass and\n a. Redl!ce by .10(froma FY2000 SnakeRiverJall chinook salmon. Yet in\n baseline ~f27) byFY 2007, the\n num.rerof threatened $pedes at risk documentationfor the Jolmson\'s sea grass, it noted\n of extinction.\n the following:"the results of our sampling and th(!t\n of Gelber et al. (2000) indicatethat.there has been\'..\n little or no change in the southerndistributionlimit of H.johnsonii (Le.,Johnson\'s Sea\n grass) over the past 28 years." In the case of Snake River fall chinook,numbers\n improved in calendar years 1998through2000. . Within the FY 2002PAR, NMFS did not\n disclose that some of the reportedresults occurred in FY 1999and FY 2000, providing\n the impression that all results were initiallyachieved in FY 2001. Although the last\n quarter of calendar year 2000 equatesto the first quarter of fiscal year 2001, we believe\n that crediting the chinook increasein FYs 1999and 2000 to NMFSFY 2001 activities\n gives the incorrect impression that the entire succe~swas achievedin FY 2001. In its\n response, NMFS noted that it wouldpreferto use long-tenn trends on species distribution\n and abundance, rather than a single annualamount to detennine whether the risk of\n extinction has been reduced or increased. For its reported results to be meaningful,\n NMFS should disclose (l) that p~onnaI)ce results are cumulativeif it uses long-tenn\n trends in detennining the status ~f a speciesand (2) when reported improvements in the\n species were initially identified. .\n\n\n\n\n For the endangeredspeciesmeasure, NMFS\n c. Reduce by 11 (from.aFY2000\n .\n\n baseli~ of29) by FY 2007, the\n reported success with the Sacramento winter river\n nurnbeFof endangered species at run chinook salmon, but the species began coming\n riSkohixtii."lttiPn. back in FY 1997. Actualresults were not listedfor\n this measme in the FY 2002PAR for FY 1999or\n FY 2000 giving the impressiontJIatthe successregarding this speciesinitially occurredin\n FY 2001. As such, this does not providereaders of the perfonnance information with a\n. clear picture that the detennination of resultsreflects a long-teon trend and that someof\n the reported success may have predatedthe establishedbaselineperiod.\n ,\n NMFS also reported improvementin the status of the endangeredSnake River sockeye\n salmon as a FY 2001 success under this measure. However, supportingdocumentation\n showed that adults returning to the river had increased ftom 7 in 1999to 257 in 2000,but\n declined to 26 in 2001. Once again, it wowd be useful fOINMFS to identify that the\n m~me is cumulativ~and when improvementsin the species were first identified.\n\n\n\n v\n\n to\n\x0c U.S: Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-I5989-4-0001\n\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n\n E. Recommendations\n\n To improve perfonnance reportingunder both goals,the Under Secretary for Oceansand\n Atmosphere should ensure that the followingactionsare taken:\n\n (1)\t Perfonnance measures clearly convey the outcomes that are being\n assessed. -~\n\n (2)\t Procedures are strengthenedto ensurethatreported data is accurate,\n fully supported,and collected over a clearlydefined, consistent time ftame.\n Such procedureswould include definedactivities and responsibilities for\n oversight, maintenanceof supportingdocumentation,and data verification:"\n\n (3)\t Accurate and completedisclosuresare providedin the explanationsand\n validation/verificationdiscussionsfor all measures, and all restatedvalues\n are presented in future reports.\n\n F. NoAA Response\n\n In response to the draft report, NMFS concurred with all the recommendations for both\n the \xc2\xabbuild sustainable fisheries" and "recover protected species" goals. It also provided\n detail for corrective actions\' that have been taken or planned with respect to the goal on\n recovering protected species. For this goal, NMFS also identified the new measures it\n wiIl begin using in FY 2006, and provided information on the process to be implemented\n . for detennining progress with respect to certain species.\n\n While NMFS acknowkdged that shifting baselines,insufficientdocumentationand\n verification of data, and inadequateexplanationsof the reported results caused problems\n with the measures in place for FY 2001 and FY 2002,they did take isSuewith certain\n statements and conclusionswithin the report. Withrespectto the goal "build sustainable\n fisheries," NMFS noted that in reporting the resultsof this measure, success is only\n repOrtedwhen a stock is fullyrebuilt even thoughdependingon the definition contained\n in a particular rebuildingplan, a stock couldbe detenninedas.not "overfished" when it\n reaches one half of its rebuildingbiomass.target. Also, NMFS stated that a 2000 baseline\n of overfished stocks for this goal was established.\n. .-\n With respect.to the "recover protected species" goal,NMFS respectfully disagreedwith\n our concluSionthat the FY 2001 perfonnance reportingon Johnson\'s sea ~ and Snake\n River fall chinook salmon for the measure "Reduceby 10 (from a FY 2000 baselineof\n 27) by FY 2007, the number-of threatenedspecies at risk of extinction," is not supported.\n For the measure on increasingthe number of commercialfisheries that have insignificant\n marinemanunalmortality,NMFSalsostatedthattheOIGhadincorrectlyreferredto .\n "laws" that took effect on January22,2001 when in fact what we described were\n implementing regulations for the Marine MammalProtectionAct. NMFS also disagreed\n with our conclusions that for the measure "Reduceby 11(trom a FY2000 baselineof29)\n by FY 2o:!7,the number of end~geredspecies at risk of extin~tion,"Sacramentowinter\n\n\n 11\n\n\x0c I I\n I I\n us. Depart";ent of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-/5989-4-000J\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n run Chinook salmon and the Snake River sockeye salmon should not have been claimed\n as a success for FY 2001. With respect to baselines, NMFS noted that a measure could\n be modified to measure a percentage of baseline, as species were added .to, or removed\n from the list of threatened or endangered species.\n\n G. OIG Comments\n\n We are encouraged by the NMFS actionstaken or plannedwith respectto these\n performancegoals. Consequently,we are looking forwardto receipt of the NMFS action\n plan to addressthe three recommendations.\n\n For the measure "Reduce the number of overfishedmajor stocks of fish from 56 to 45 by\n FY 2007" supporting the goal \'\'build sustainablefisheries"we revised the report to note\' ,\n that stocks.are eliminated as an "overfishedmajor stock" only when a stock is completely\n rebuilt. We also noted that dependingupon the definition containedin the rebuilding\n plan, a stockcould be determinedas not overfishedwhen it reaches one half of its\n rebuildingbiomass target. As such, we notedthat NMFS shouldmake sure that readers\n of performancemeasures are clear as to when a stock\'s progress is considereda success.\n We still believe the use of a baseline as used for this number is problematicand suggest\n that ifNMFS continues to use a baselinethat it modifYthemeasure to a percentage of\n baseline. Such a measure would compensatefor the additionor removalof stocks ftom\n the categoryof overfished major stocks.\n\n With respectto the NMFS disagreementwith our conclusionsthat results for the two\n measures"Reduce by 10 (ftom a FY~OOObaseline of27) by FY 2007, the number of\n threatenedspecies at risk of extinction"and "Reduce by 11(from a FY 2000 baseline of\n 29) by FY 2007, the number of endangeredspecies at risk of extinction"were not\n supported,we modified the report to clarifyour position that creditingsuccessfor FY\n 2001 in theFY 2002P AR gave the improperimpressionthat the results were entirely.\n achievedduring FY 2001. Consequently,we modified the text to clarify our position that\n NMFS shouldhave disclosed the cumulativenature of results and when results were\n initiallydetermined. We movedthis discussionftom the section of the finding entitled\n \'\'NMFS lacksa rigorous processfor ensuringdata reliability" to the section"Additional\n disclosureswould enhance usefulnessof results." Also, we added the NMFS suggestion\n that a measurecould be modifiedto measurea percentage of baseline, as species were\n,\xc2\xad added to, or removed from the list of threatenedor endangered~cies. For the measure\n on increasingthe number of commercialfisheriesthat have insignificantmarine Inammal\n mortality,we modified oUrdiscussionto acknowledgethat the implementiIt8regulations\n for the Atlanticlarge whale take reductionplan came into effect on January22,2001 and\n that it requiredconservation measuresbased on several years of monitoring,gear\n research,andpublic dialogue.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\n\x0c u.s. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-159894-000l\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n ll.\t Performance reporting for OARINESDIS goal-"Predict and Assess Decadal\n to Centennial Climate Change"-needs stronger oversight to ensure data\n reliability and enhance understanding\n\n The Department and NOAA listed three performancemeasuresto support this goalin the\n FY 2002 Performanceand AccountabilityReport and reported meeting two of them))~\n assess and model carbQnsources andsinks globally,and detennine the actual long-term\n changes in temperature-andprecipitationover the United States. As a proxy, NOAA\n reports the establishmentof observingsystemsto achievethis goal.\n\n We found the clarity, accuracy, and usefulnessof reporteddata in assessing OAR and\n NESDIS\' performance under this goal was lessenedby weaknessesin the presentationQf\n the three measures. .\n A. Titles of measures and targets do not precisely characterize reported data\n\n The U.S. carbon sourcesmeasure applies to\n a. A$es.sand modelcarbon\n sou~ and sinks throughoutthe observingsystemsdeployedwithin the United States.\n United States The observingsystemsprovide data used in assessing\n b. AsSess ~nd modelcarbon and modeling carbonstorage in the ocean and .\n sources and sinks globally\n atmosphere. For FY 2002, NOAA reported that it\n had identifiedfive new pilot atmospheric sites and\n four new oceanic carbon tracks when reporting on the measure "assess and modelcarbon\n sources and sinks throughoutthe United States. The fivenew pilot atmospheric profiling\n sites that NOAA reports having establishedare withinU.S. borders. However, the\n reported results also includeocean tracks that involvesailingvessels that travel globally,\n and these would thus be more appropriatelyincludedin the second performance\n measur~"assess and model carbonsources and sinks globally." NOAA officials\n concurred.\n\n The temperature/precipitationmeasurecovers only the 48 contiguous states. Although\n this fact is noted in the explanation, the title should\n e. Oetennine actJJaIlong-term changes\n also specify "throughoutthe contiguousUnited\n ..if!.tetnpeniture a.nd pr\xc2\xabipitation States." NOAA officiaJsagreed that the title\n thr<i>"ughOut tOOUnit~.Sfat~s should be revised.\n.\n\n Criterill for success need to be defined. . For the carbon sources measures, NOAA gauges\n its success by the number of carbon data collection sites "established,ubut has not strictly\n defined what "established"means, so sites counted in supportof the measure couldbe at\n different stages of development. NOAA officials told us that an established site couldbe\n one whose locationhas been tentativelyidentified, has been agreed upon, or is\n operational. Hence, data reported for these measures may not be comparable, and the\n reader may think "established"meaJ.1S in place and operational.\n\n\n v\t II AUthree measures were new in FY\n v\n 2002.\n\n\n\n 13\n\n\x0c u.s. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-15989-4-0001\n Office of Inspector General September 2004\n\n\n . TheU.S.carbonsourcesmeasurestipulateditstargetas "establishing"pilotsitesand\n reported having "tentatively identjfied"new sites that in some cases were specificcities\n and in other cases were states. The latter suggeststhat the locationhad been narrowed\n down but not specificallychosen. NOAA officialsconcurred that they need to report\n .\t dataconsistentlyandto the samelevelof detail. . .\n -\n B.\t Documentation to support r~ults should be maintained, PAR explanations\n need to be clear and accurate, and verification procedures are needed\n\n\n\n\n Adequate supporting documentation not maint(lined. NOAA officials could not\n initiallyprovide supportingdocumentationfor perfonnance data reported under any of\n the three measures. Also, what they eventuallyprovided did not always match claimed\n . results for both the U.S. and global carbon sourcesmeasures. The.documentswe\n\n reviewed indicated that FY 2002 resultswere likelyunderstated in the PAR for ~th of\n the measures. .\n\n\n\n\n a. Assess\t and model carbon As a proxy for the assessment and modeling of carbon\n sourcesand sinks,NOAA uses the establishmentof data\n sources and sinks throughout\n the United States collectionsites. For the U.S. carbon sources measure,we\n were initiallyprovidedwith supportingdocumentation\n identifying three specific sites (cities) and severalpreliminary sites (states). At our\n - request, NOAA reassessedthe year-end statusof sites and provided documentation\n supportingthat, as ofthe close ofFY 2002, it was further along than reported. NOAA\n reported in theFY 2002 PAR that as of the end ofFY 2001, five carbon profiling sites\n and four new oceanic carbon tracks had been identified. However, two aircraft, using\n NOAA equipment,were alreadyprovidingdat~ work had started on collectingdata ftom\n another aircraft, and four aircraft and one tall towersite had been tentatively identified.\n We also found that the Atlantic Oceanographicand MeteorologicalLaboratory(AOML)\n began collecting data ftorila ship operatingin the Caribbean in March 2002.\n\n For the globalmeasure,NOAA repOI;tedthe establislunentof\n . b. As$$S$ and mQd~\n. carbOn soUrces a\'nd. three new sites,.butcouldnot readily produce documentation\n ~ g(O~11y substantiatingthese results. At our request, NOAA\n reassessed the fiscalyear\'-endstatus of its obsei:yation\n sYstems,and again found that it was furtheralongthan it had reported: it had begun\n receiving data fium one land-basedsite (pallas,Finland),two ships, and deployedtwo\n . CO2sensors located on ocean moorings by the end ofFY 2002. Also, NOAA was\n developing a second land-basedsite (Ochsenkopf,Gennany), and was in discussionsfor\n 2 other sites. The NOAA official responsiblefor reportingon the oceanic and carbon .\n tracks and global background sites recognizedthe deficiencies in supportingdata and the\n need for improvement in this area.\n\n v\t v\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c I\n I\n II\n u.s. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-I5989-4-000J\n Officeof Inspector General September 200i\n\n\n NOAA did not maintain documentation supporting\n c. Detennineactuallong-tenn\t .. .\n cl1angesintemperatureand results for the temperature/precIpItatIon measure, but\n precipitation\n throughoutthe was able to produce corroborating data from its system\n UnitedStates\t that tracks temperature and precipitation trends..\n .\t Although the measure waS recalculated within a few\n minutes, doing so required the availability of personnel with the knowledge and expertise\n to perfonn the recalculaJion. With the potential for retirements and reassignments, there\n is no guarantee that the-personnel necessary to perfonn the calculation will always be\n available. NOAA should maintain current, readily available records supporting the\n results it submits to the Department for publication in the PAR.\n\n Explanations not consistent with actual events. Our audit found that the expianations\n accompanyingcertain measures containedinaccurateinfonnation.\t "\n\n a. Assess\t and model carbon While NOAA properly notes that the U.S. carbon\n sources ;;Indsinks throughoutmeasure was not met, its discussion Qfthe results\n the United States incorrectly identifies two ocean tracks for ships equipped\n with CO2 sensors. We found that the reported Newark,\n Delaware, to Bennuda track actually was to begin in Newark, New Jersey (the ships\n ultimately sailed from Norfolk, Virginia); the California to the Far East track actually\n runs from California to Australia/New Zealand. It also discussed AOML and Pacific,\n Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) data collection but did not include this data in\n the results, and reported a planned atmospheric profiling site in North Carolina (South\n Carolina was ultimately chosen instead).\n\n The explanation for this measure only mentions that a .\n b. Assess and model\n carbon sources and samplingsite has been establishedin Ochsenkopf,Gennany,\n sinks globally and that discussionsfor other sites are under way. However,\n suppor:tingdocumentationwe reviewed indicatedthat NOAA\n had began receiving data from sites in Pallas,Finland,and an ocean track as of the end of\n FY 2002.\n\n Documented verification procedures not in place and inappropriatelydescribed. For all\n measures,NOAA does not have proceduresor an establishedchain of command at the\n program level for verifying the accuracyof collecteddata and related explanations.\n. :\t For example,NOAA infonned us that officialsresponsiblefor the ocean track data under\n the U.S. carbon sources measurewere not giventhe opportunityto review the\n accompanyingexplanation, whichhad been writtenthree years earlier and)Vasthus in\n need of update. mcorrect route infonnation was consequentlyreported.\n\n For all three measures, the verificationproceduresdescribed-quality assurance,\n calibrations,and simulation-are methods for ascertainingthe scientificquality of the\n data rather than the accuracy of reported numbers. NOAA needs to detail its\n methodologyfor ensuring the data correctlyreflectsits progress toward meeting\n perfonnance goals.\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c u.s. Department of Commerce Final Report No. FSD-15~89-4-0001\n Ojji-(:eof Inspector General September 2004\n\n c. Recommendations\n\n To improve performance reporting under this goal, the UnderSecretary for Oceansand\n A~osphere should ensure that the following actionsare taken:\n\n (1) Performance\t measures and targets are revised to clearly convey the actiVities\n and outcom~ that are being assessed.\n\n (2) \'Incorrect or unclear results are restated in futureperformance reports.\n\n (3) Managementprocedures to ensure that reporteddata is accurate, fully\n supported, and adequately explainedand verifiedare strengthened. Such\n procedureswould include defined activitiesandresponsibilities for oversiglif;\'\n maintenance of supporting documentation,and data verification.\n\n (4) Explanationsand validation/verificationdiscussionsprovide all appropriate\n informationneeded to fully understandthe meaningof reported results.\n\n D. NOAA Response\n\n In response to the draft report, NOAA concurredwith all four recommendations. NOAA.\n discussed the following actionsthat had been taken or wereplanned to address the\n recommendations: (1) revision of performance measuresfor the FY 2006 Annual\n Perfonnance Plan, (2) the developmentof more rigorous reportingstandards and\n improvement in e!planations of supportingtext,J3) the establishmentof a perf~rmance\n measure data.basefor the climateprogram, and (4) strengtheningof future explanations\n and validation/verificationdiscussions.\n\n E. OIG Comments\n\n We are encouragedby the NOAA actions taken and plannedwith respect to this measure\n and look forward to receiving their action plan.\n\n\n I"\n.\n \xc2\xb0..\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n I\n\n\n\n . UNI"i"\xc2\xa3O\n N~tio.aa.\n STA"r\xc2\xa3S\n Oceanic\n ePA\xc2\xabT\'M!!N\'t"\n and Atn1osp!1leric\n O!P COM1\\Iiett.ce\n AdO:iini.$~...ti()"\n CHIEF ADMINISTRAT1VE OFFICER\n-.\n\n\n\n JUl 2 2 2004\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR: WilliamF. Bedwell>Jr. \xc2\xad\n\n -\n Acting DeputyAssistant\n InspectorGeneral.for Auditing\n\n FROM:\n\n SUBJECT:\n WilliamF.BrogIie 1\'\'\'-\'- /7 a\'+~\n Improvements Needed in the Reporting of Performance for"\n ~M~~-&~~~ook~~~&oo~\n\n . Protected Species. and Predict and.Assess Decada/ to\n Centennial Climate Change\n Draft Audit Report No. FSD-15989-4-000lIJune 2004\n\n\n Attached is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministratiQn\'s (NOAA) response to\n the Office of Inspector General>s draft audit report on NOAA>s reporting of three\n performance goals and their associated measures in the Department of Commerce FY 2002\n Performance and Acoountability Report: (1) "build sustainable fisheries>" (2) "recover\n protected species," and (3) "predict and assess decadaI tQ centennial climate change." This\n response was prepared in accordance with De~ent Administrative Order 2.P-3.\n\n We concur with all seven recommendationsand appreciate the opportunity to"respondto\n your draft audit report.\n\n Attachment\n\n\n\n\n ,i\n\n I::\n\n\n\n\n .~\n\n\x0c T\t n- - _n _n_- - nn - -- --- n- ---\xc2\xad\n i\n\n\n\n\n..\n NOAA Comments on the Draft Office oflnspector General Report Entitled\n "Improvements Needed in the Reporting of Performance for NOAA Goals -Build\n Sustainable Fisheries, Recover Protected Species, and Predict and Assess\n . J>ecadal to Centennial Climate Change"\n (Draft Au~it Report No. FSD-J?989-4-Oo01lJune 2004)\n\n -\n General Comments\n\n -TheNationalMarine Fisheries Service(NMFS) generallyco~curswiththe findings and\n recommendationsof the repo~ with certain exceptionsnotedbelow. Shiftingbaselines,\n insufficientdocumentationandverificationof ~ andinadequateexplanationsof the reported\n resultsindeed caused problems with the measures in plaCefor fiscal years2000 and 2001. ...\'\n\n Theproblem of shifting baselinesis inherentin the complexityof naturalresourcemanagement,\n as circumstanceswithin the environmentand ecosystemsare constantlychanging. Not only are\n the resourcesthemselves in constantflux, but so is our knowledgeof them. 1llere is no perfect\n solutionto this problem. Data collection,verification,and explanationare also difficulttasks\n giventhe complexityof the systemsbeing described.\n\n .\t The performancemeasureSevaluatedin this report representNOAA\'s:firstattempt at outcome\xc2\xad\n based performance managemcent and reporting. Outcome-based performanCe.measurement is\n extremelydifficult, especially giventhe complexityof thenatural environmentand the \xc2\xad\n\n ecosystems with which NMFS mission is concerned. It is therefore not surprising that this first\n attempt was met with unforeseen difficulties and inadequacies. Valuable lessons have been\n learned from this experience.\n\n Specific Comments\n\n Page 4. paragraph 1. line 3: The reportstatesthat "becauseFY 2002 results werenot provided\n for any of the measures, we assessedFY 2001 results." This is inacCuratewith respectto the\n \'\'Recover Protected Species" goal. Perfonnancewas summarizedand documentedfor both FY\n 2001 and FY 2002. Both years\' performancewas providedat the Officeof Inspector General\'s\n (OIG)request. "-..-.\n\n\n PR2e4~paragraph3: The repo~ statesthat the "Build SustainableFisheries"measure "...implies\n ;\t the eliminationof major stocks wm considerationas beingoverfished. As such, this measure\n gives an inaccuratedescription ofwhat is being measured."In fact, only when a~ock is fully\n rebuilt in accord with the Magnuson-stevensAct requirementsof an approvedreBUildingplan is .\n it elirnirmtedas an "overfished major stock" for reportingsuccessunderthis measure.\n De~g upon the definition containedin a rebuildingplan, a stock-couldbe determinedas not\n "overfished"when it reaches one baIfof its rebUildingbiomasstarget. However,for the purpose\n of reportingsuccessunder this measure,we determinednot to reportsuccessmtil a stock is fully\n rebuilt Therefore,the current measuremore than accuratelyreflectsprogresstowmd the goalof\n reducingthe number of stocks that are overfished. .\n\n v 1\n\n\x0c. .\n\n\n Page 5. paragraph 6. and page 6. paragraph2: "NMFS\' use of this conventionfor measures...\n precludeseffectiveassessments of its successbecausethe defIned\'universe is not stablebut is\n alwayschanging."\n\n The "Recover Protected Species" goal established a 2000 or 2001 baseline for the fIve-year\n period believing that reviewers would be able to clearly m~ure progress. For example, the .\n\n target of reducing by 11 the_numberof endangeredspeciesat risk of extinctioncouldbe\n measuredagainst a baseline:of 29 speciesin FY 2000. Sucha measure could be modifIedto\n measure a percentageof the baseline,as specieswere addedto, or removed from the list of\n -threatenedand endangered species.\n\n Similarly,a 2000 baseline of overfishedstocks for the "Build SustainableFisheries"goalwas\n establishedto avoidthe problem highlightedby the OIG of having a baselinethat is always "\',\n changing. Therewas a one-timechangein the baselinein 2002 for overfishedstocksto take\n into account 11stocks no longer subjectto the rebuildingrequirementsof Magnuson-Stevens .\n Act. The agencyhas consistently trackedthe statusof these stocks since that time. In addition,\n the status of all stocks is tracked in the AnnualNMFS Statusof StocksReport to the Congress.\n\n Page 6. paragraph3: We agree with this overallfinding. Perfonnance measuredby the Recover\n Protected SpeciesProgram in FY 2000 and FY 2001 was from disparate sourceswithinNMFS.\n There was no formalmechanism for gatheringor submittingdata in supportof Government\n PerformanceResultsAct (GPRA)-mandatedperformancemeasurementor for regional\n managersand sciencecenter directorsto sign off or certifyall of the results. Whilethe standards\n of data gathering and reporting by NMFS regional offices and science centers are rigorous and .\n\n\n often peer-I:~viewed, they were seldom done with the purpose of specific measurement of the\n GPRA performance measures. . .\n\n\n\n\n For the "Build Sustainable Fisheries" goal, the data are contained within the Annual NMFS\n Status of Stocks Report to the Congress. The timing issues noted by the OIG are a result of this\n report being issued at different points in the year.\n\n P~e 8. ~h 1: NMFS respectfullydisagreeswith the findingthat the FY 2001\n perfonnance reportingon Johnson\'s sea grass and SnakeRiver chinooksalmon is not supported\n by data. In the case of Johnson\'s sea grass the successwas that the species had not declined.\n Our meaSureof success in reducingthe probabilityof extinctionis tQ.havestable or increasing\n numbers. ",\n"\n\n In referenceto the Snake River fall chinook,we respectfullydisagree with the conclusionthat it\n is inappropriateto use data from 1998through2000 to assessperformance in FY 2001. We\n would prefer to use long-tenn trendsin speciesdistribution.andabundance,rather than a single\n annual count to determine whetherits risk of extinctionhas been being reduced or increased.\n\n P~e 8. 1J~h 2: The OIG has inC9rrectlyreferredto "laws" that tookeffect on January22,\n 2001, and concludedthey would take years to ensurethat they were effective. The lawrequiring\n the reduction of marine mammalmortalitytook effectin 1994with a re-authorizationof the\n\n 2\n\x0c Marine Mammal Protection Act. The January 22>2001 "law" is actually an implementing\n regulation for the Atlantic large whale take reduction plan. The regulation required conservation\n measures in commercial fisheries based on several years of species monitoring> gear research and\n public dialogue to determine that these measures would reduce interactions"in the mid-Atlantic\n lobster trap-pot fishery and the drift gilInet fishery. These analyses"included Endangered Species\n Act (ESA) section1 consultationson the effectsof the fisherieson endangeredwhalesandthe "\n\n\n\n\n leg~ requirementthat we ~ove the likelihoodof jeopardizingthe continuedexistenceof these\n specIes.\n\n -P31!e8. paragraPhs\'3 and 4: With respectto your conclusionsregardingthe Sacramentowinter\n run chinook salmonand the Snake River sockeyesalmon, we respectfullydisagree with your\n finding that these should not ,havebeen claimedas a successfor FY 2001. We refer you to the\n response above. It is true that the criteriameasuredthe currentstatusversus that at the time of\n listing to make a detennination of whetherits risk of extinctionwas increasing,decreasing,or\n .\t remaining the same. These chinook and sockeyesalmon specieswere listed in 1994and 1991 .\n respectively,and our assessmenttakes into accountthe longer term database, rather thanrelying\n on the one-yearSIl3pShotof status.\n\n PaJ!es8-9. paragfaph5: We agree in generalwith this conclusionand agree that parties\n responsible for generating and reportingfutureperformanceresults shouldsign the reportsand\n maintain appropriatedocumentation.\n\n P~e 10. paragraph 4 : We agree with this conclusion with respect to defining insignificant levels\n of marine mammal mortality interacting with commercial fisheries.\n\n NOAA Response to OIG Recommendations\'\n\n I. Performance data for NMFS-supported goalS-"Build Sustainable Fisheries" and\n "Recover Protected Species"-was compromised by wlclear measures, weak procedures to\n ensure reliable data, insufficient documentation, and inadequate explanations\n\n To improve performancereporting under both goals,the Under Secretaryfor Oceans and\n Atmosphere shouldensure that the followingactionsare taken:\t .\n\n\n\n Recommendation 1: Performancemeasuresclearlyconveythe outcotp.esthat are being\n M~~ " "\n.\n NOAA Response: We concur for both the ReCoverProtectedBpeciesand BUildS~ustainable\n Fisheries Programs. With respectto RecoverProtected Species(now Protected Species\n Management)perfonnance measuresbeginningin FY 2006, they hav~been revised as follows:\n . Increasethe number of threatened,endangeredand depletedprotectedspecies!as of\n\n\n IProtectedspecies is defined as all marine mammalstocks and those non-marinemammal\n species listed as threatened or endangeredundertheESA\n v 3\n\x0c I\n\n" .\n\n\n January 1, 2004 (out of 68) with stable or increasingpopulationlevels from 20 in 2005 to\n 36 in 2009.\n\n . Increase the m,unberof protected species) withlrnownimpactsby fisheries as of January\n 1, 2004 (out of 136)for which mortalitiesarereducedto acceptablelevels2from 117in\n 2005 to 126 in 2009. -\xc2\xad\n\n . Increase the numbeiof endangered, threatened, depleted or strategic protected speciesl\n (out of 78) for which recovery, conservation, and/or take reduction plans are in place\n from 30 in-2oo5 to 70 in 2009.\n\n . Increase the number of stocks of protected species3(out of230) with adequatepopul~tion\n assessments from 6O\'in2005 to 200 in 2009. .\\\n\n\n Recommendation 2: Proceduresare strength~ed to ensurethat reported data is accurate,fully\n supported,and collected over a clearlydefined, consistenttime frame. Such procedureswould\n includedefmed activities and responsibilitiesfor oversight,maintenanceof supporting\n documentation,and data verification.\n\n NOM Response: We concurfor both programs. Forthe "Recover Protected Species"goal,\n eachNMFS regional office and science center is to provideinput on the achievementof our\n GPRAperformance goals for FY 2003 and that reportingbe completedin tim.efor reportingto\n the Departmentof Commerceby December3I, 2004.\n\n Specifically-werequested that each regionnominate specificspeciesor fisheries that can be used\n to justify performance towards the measuresfor FY 2003. A templatewas provided(see page 5)\n for each species/fisherythat is nominated. The basicinformationrieededfor each specieS/fishery\n includesa short description of why it meets the measure,and any documentationthat can be used\n to supportthe determination. We made it clear that themeasuresare cumulativein nature and\n those species/fisheriesreportedfor FY 2002 should not be nominatedfor FY 2003 unlessit is\n detennined that they cannotmeet the intent of the perfonnancemeasure.\n\n Weprovided guidance for determiningwhether a specieshas a loweredrisk of extinction;to\n evaluatethe species biology (e.g.,abundance,trends, distribution,and,diversity)as well as any\n conservationactions that reduceor remove any significantthreatsto th~species. For example,\n :: many of the Pacific salmon speciesthat were reported in FY 2002 had both increasedabundance,\n \'.\n 2Acceptablelevels are definedas take"lessthan the PotentialBiologicalRemoval (PBR)for\n marine mammals, and take authorizedthrough ESA sections4(d), 1(~)(2),and 10for listed\n species. .\n 3 Stocksincludepopulations ofESA -listedspecies.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.4.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 165/29
 Caingean arna tabhairt an 27 Eanáir 2022 – BNP Paribas v SRB
 (Cás T-71/22)
 (2022/C 165/44)
 Teanga an cháis: an Béarla
 Páirtithe
 Iarratasóir: BNP Paribas (Páras, an Fhrainc) (ionadaí: A. Champsaur agus A. Delors, dlíodóirí)
 Cosantóir: An Bord Réitigh Aonair (BRA)
 An t-ordú atá á lorg
 Iarrann an t-iarratasóir ar an gCúirt Ghinearálta:
 —
 a ordú do BRA an plean réitigh iomláin a cheadaítear faoin gcinneadh réitigh a thabhairt ar aird; (1)
 —
 a dhearbhú nach mór gan forálacha Bheartas ICDI atá faoi chonspóid a chur i bhfeidhm;
 —
 an cinneadh réitigh a chur ar neamhní;
 —
 cinneadh ICDI a chur ar neamhní; (2)
 —
 a ordú do BRA costais dlí agus eile an iarratasóra agus caiteachas a bhaineann leis na himeachtaí seo a íoc.
 Saincheisteanna dlí agus príomhargóintí.
 Mar thaca leis an gcaingean, maíonn an t-iarratasóir cúig shaincheist dlí, mar thaca lena chaingean i gcoinne an cinneadh réitigh agus ocht saincheist dlí mar thaca leis an gcaingean i gcoinne chinneadh ICDI.
 1.
 An chéad saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir leis an gcinneadh réitigh, go ndearna BRA earráidí sa dlí. Maíonn an t-iarratasóir go sáraítear leis an gcinneadh réitigh forálacha Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014 an 15 Iúil 2014, (3) agus Rialacháin Tarmligthe (AE) 2016/1075 ón gCoimisiún an 23 Márta 2016, (4) chomh maith le prionsabal na comhréireachta.
 2.
 An dara saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir leis an gcinneadh réitigh, go ndearna BRA earráidí follasacha measúnaithe agus gur sháraigh sé prionsabal an dea-rialachais.
 —
 Mar thaca leis an tsaincheist sin, maíonn an t-iarratasóir gur ghlac BRA stráitéis aonfhoirmeach “bannaí isteach amháin” le haghaidh gach institiúide domhanda a bhfuil tábhacht shistéamach ag baint léi (G-SII), gan aird ar chásanna réitigh iarbhír, agus gur theip air na heilimintí bunaithe ar fíricí agus réasún a fhiosrú go cúramach agus go neamhchlaonta, a chuir an t-iarratasóir ar aghaidh ina rogha i leith stráitéis réitigh.
 3.
 An tríú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir leis an gcinneadh réitigh, go gcuireann BRA seasamh in iúl lena léirítear rogha normatach agus, mar sin gur sháraigh sé a chumhachtaí faoi Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014.
 4.
 An ceathrú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir leis an gcinneadh réitigh, gur glacadh é de shárú ar cearta an iarratasóra éisteacht a fháil agus de shárú ar dhualgas BRA cúiseanna a lua, gan údar cuí a thabhairt dá rogha i leith straitéis réitigh don iarratasóir.
 5.
 An cúgiú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir leis an gcinneadh réitigh, go sáraítear le roinnt forálacha de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014, a chuir BRA i bhfeidhm tríd an gcinneadh a ghlacadh, cearta bunúsacha chomh maith le CFAE.
 6.
 An chéad saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, go bhfuil sé bunaithe ar agus nasctha go dlúth, leis an gcinneadh réitigh, agus mar sin nach mbeadh bunús leis a thuilleadh dá ndéanfaí an cinneadh sin a chur ar neamhní.
 7.
 An dara saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, go ndearna BRA earráid sa dlí agus forálacha Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014 á léirmhíniú agus á gcur i bhfeidhm.
 —
 Mar thaca leis an tsaincheist sin, maíonn an t-iarratasóir gur mhainnigh BRA an grúpa baincéireachta iar-réitigh a chur san áireamh ina chinneadh ICDI agus an ceanglas maoláin chomhcheangailte iar-réitigh (CBR) sa chinneadh maidir leis an muirear ar mhuinín an mhargaidh, agus gur mhainnigh leis measúnú iomláin ar na heilimintí ábhartha de ríomh ICDI agus cúiseanna eile a lua maidir lena ríomh ICDI.
 8.
 An tríú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, go ndearna BRA earráidí follasacha measúnaithe i dtaca le ICDI a chinneadh agus gur sháraigh sé prionsabal an dea-riaracháin, a mhéid a mhainnigh BRA measúnú cúramach agus neamhchlaonta a dhéanamh ar grúpa BNP Paribas iar-réitigh, agus go háirithe gan éifeachtaí an réitigh ar mhéid agus an tsamhail ghnó ag grúpa BNP Paribas a chur san áireamh.
 9.
 An ceathrú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, gur sháraigh BRA prionsabal an ionchais dhlisteanaigh, nuair a mhainnigh sé roinnt forálacha dá bheartas ICDI féin a chur i bhfeidhm maidir le coigeartuithe ICDI.
 10.
 An cúgiú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, gur sháraigh BRA prionsabail na comhréireachta, an ceart chun maoine agus saoirse chun gnó a sheoladh, trí méid ICDI a shocrú atá díréireach i bhfianaise na gcuspóirí réitigh.
 11.
 An séú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, gur mhainnigh BRA cúiseanna a thabhairt don chinneadh, nuair nár cuireadh sa cinneadh na heilimintí riachtanach ionas go dtuigfeadh an t-iarratasóir ar cén fhoras agus de réir cén mhodheolaíocht a ndearnadh cinneadh ICDI agus cén fáth gur imigh an mhodheolaíocht ón modheolaíocht ghinearálta a leagtar amach i mBeartas ICDI.
 12.
 An seachtú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, gur sháraigh BRA ceart an iarratasóra chun éisteacht a fháil, i gcás go ndiúltaítear mar phrionsabail roinnt barúlacha a chur san áireamh.
 13.
 An t-ochtú saincheist dlí lena n-éilítear, maidir le cinneadh ICDI, go sáraítear le Beartas ICDI, lena mbunaítear cinneadh ICDI, Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2014 agus gurb é atá ann ná mí-úsáid chumhachtaí ag BRA, a mhéid atá rogha normatach i réimse an réitigh agus go sáraítear cumhachtaí an reachtóra.
 (1) An cinneadh réitigh dá dtagraítear: Cinneadh comhpháirteach maidir le plean réitigh an ghrúpa agus measúnú ar inréititheacht do BNP Paribas agus a fhochuideachtaí, mar a dheimhnigh an Bord Réitigh Aonair, Magyar Nemzeti Bank, Finanstilsynet agus Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny, an 4 Samhain 2021, Uimhir Thagartha RC/JD/2020/52.
 (2) Cinneadh ICDI dá dtagraítear: Cinneadh comhpháirteach chun riachtanas íosta do chistí dílse agus dliteanais inghlachta do BNP Paribas agus roinnt dá chleamhnaithe mar a dheimhnigh BRA, Magyar Nemzeti Bank, Finanstilsynet agus Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny, an 4 Samhain 2021, Uimhir Thagartha RC/JD/2020/53.
 (3) Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 806/2914 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 15 Iúil 2014 lena mbunaítear rialacha aonfhoirmeacha agus nós imeachta aonfhoirmeach maidir le réiteach institiúidí creidmheasa agus gnólachtaí infheistíochta áirithe faoi chuimsiú Sásra Réitigh Aonair agus Ciste Réitigh Aonair agus lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010 (IO L 225, 30.7.2014, lch. 1).
 (4) Rialacháin Tarmligthe (AE) 2015/281 ón gCoimisiún an 23 Márta 2016 lena bhforlíontar Treoir 2014/59/AE ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle maidir le caighdeáin theicniúla rialála lena sonraítear ábhar na bpleananna téarnaimh, na bpleananna réitigh agus na ngrúp-phleananna réitigh, na híoschritéir ar a ndéanfaidh an t-údarás inniúil measúnú maidir leis na pleananna téarnaimh agus na grúp-phleananna téarnaimh, na coinníollacha maidir le ghrúpthacaíocht airgeadais, na ceanglais do luachálaithe neamhspleácha, aitheantas conarthach cumhachtaí díluachála agus athraithe, nósanna imeachta agus ábhar na gceanglas um fhógra maidir le fionraí agus feidhmiú oibríochtúil na gcoláistí réitigh (IO L 184, 8.7.2016, lch. 1).