Fish and Wildlife Service: Challenges to Managing the Carlsbad,
California, Field Office's Endangered Species Workload (Letter Report,
01/31/2001, GAO/GAO-01-203).

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Carlsbad office is developing a
computerized project-tracking system for its consultation and habitat
conservation planning (HCP) projects, which, if properly implemented,
should improve the offices record keeping and its ability to track the
status of projects and help determine why they are in that status. The
new system could also improve project management by allowing office
managers to determine how long an applicant has been involved in the
consultation or HCP process and whether the recommended time frames for
completing consultations and the targeted time frames for processing
HCPs have been exceeded. The Carlsbad office will still have difficulty
completing its consultations and HCP projects within the recommended or
targeted time frames if it is not able to do something about its
staffing problems. An inability to hire new staff and retain existing,
experienced staff has made it difficult for the Carlsbad office to meet
the demands of its workload. Because the Carlsbad office does not
maintain its project files in accordance with federal internal control
standards and FWS' guidelines, there has often been confusion between
the office and its customers on what was agreed to and why. In addition,
without adequate documentation, managers and others have a difficult
time determining whether the status of a project is justified. Although
the Carlsbad office has developed an informal process for handling
customer complaints, the process has many weaknesses regarding the
handling of complaint data.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-203
     TITLE:  Fish and Wildlife Service: Challenges to Managing the
	     Carlsbad, California, Field Office's Endangered Species
	     Workload
      DATE:  01/31/2001
   SUBJECT:  Endangered species
	     Data bases
	     Management information systems
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Internal controls

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-203

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

January 2001 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Challenges to Managing the Carlsbad,
California, Field Office's Endangered Species Workload

Page i GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office Letter 1

Appendix I The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects 31

Appendix II Consultation Sampling Error 47

Appendix III Comments From the Department of the Interior 48

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements 51

Tables

Table 1: The Number of Staff on Board, the Number Requested, and the Number
of Staff Positions Funded, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 2000 18 Table 2:
Separation Rates of Staff in Nonclerical Positions From

the Carlsbad Field Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Fiscal Years
1997 Through 2000 19 Table 3: Sampling Error for Each Estimate 47

Figures

Figure 1: The Completeness and Accuracy of Consultation Logs, Fiscal Years
1992 Through 1999 7 Figure 2: The Completeness and Accuracy of 40 HCPs 9
Figure 3: Map of Initial Project Boundary and Service Suggested

Project Area, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Movement Corridor From Occupied to
Unoccupied Habitat, and the Project's Proximity to Tramway Road 33 Figure 4:
Map Illustrating the Location of the Sixth Pair of Coastal

California Gnatcatchers Compared With the Other Five Pairs, the Flight
Corridor, and the Wildlife Corridor 40 Contents

Page ii GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office Abbreviations

EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement HCP habitat
conservation plan NPR National Performance Review

Page 1 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

January 31, 2001 The Honorable Don Young The Honorable Ken Calvert House of
Representatives

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responsible for
administering the Endangered Species Act for freshwater and land species.
Under the act, the Service works with federal agencies and private
landowners to ensure that land development or other activities do not place
federally listed endangered or threatened species at the risk of extinction.

Land development can conflict with the protection of listed species. Such is
the case in southern California, where recent population growth and land
development have often been at odds with the efforts of the Service's
Carlsbad field office to protect the large number of listed species that
inhabit the area. Over the last several years, landowners and developers,
among others, have complained about how the Carlsbad office has implemented
the act's consultation and habitat conservation planning (HCP) provisions.
Complaints have focused on the Carlsbad office's performance in documenting
its suggested offsetting measures to avoid killing, harming, or harassing
endangered species and allegations that the office often changes its mind on
these measures, which results in delays in concluding a consultation or
developing an HCP.

Because of these concerns, you asked us to determine (1) whether the
Carlsbad office had an effective system for tracking its workload of
consultations and HCPs; (2) the extent to which the office is complying with
the Service's time frames for completing formal consultations and HCP
processing; (3) in those instances where the time frames are exceeded, why
this is occurring; and (4) if the Carlsbad office has a system for
registering and resolving customers' complaints. We presented our
preliminary findings in a hearing before the House Committee on Resources on
September 14, 2000. 1

1 See Fish and Wildlife Service: Weaknesses in the Management of the
Endangered Species Program Workload at the Carlsbad, California Field Office
(GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 293, Sept. 14, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

In addition, to illustrate the concerns of individuals who have either
sought consultations or applied for permits from the Carlsbad office, we are
providing you with information on three projects as well as the field
office's perspective on these concerns. (See app. I.)

At the time of our review, the Carlsbad office did not have effective
systems for tracking its workload of consultations and HCPs. We estimated
that the consultation tracking system- which was manual- was incomplete and
inaccurate for 769 (75 percent) of 1,026 informal and formal consultations
that occurred from fiscal year 1992, the year the Carlsbad office began
operations, through fiscal 1999. For HCPs, the Carlsbad office had no
tracking system of its own but relied on the Service's nationwide HCP
database for tracking them, which we likewise found was incomplete and
inaccurate. For example, the HCP database did not identify the date when an
applicant initially contacted the Carlsbad office for 15 of the 40 HCPs
associated with the Carlsbad office. We also determined that the Carlsbad
office did not always maintain its files in accordance with federal internal
control standards and the Service's guidelines. For example, many of the
transactions associated with consultations and HCPs had not been promptly or
accurately recorded. The Service and the Carlsbad office have recently taken
actions to address these problems. Specifically, the Carlsbad office is
implementing a computerized project- tracking system for its consultations
and HCPs and is developing a centralized filing system. The Service has
directed its regional offices to ensure that the information in its
nationwide HCP database is accurate and current. We have not assessed the
effectiveness of these actions nor verified whether they have been
completed.

We found that formal consultations and HCPs were often not completed within
the Service's recommended or targeted time frames. According to the
Service's guidelines, formal consultations should be completed within 135
days of being initiated, unless extensions are requested and agreed to by
the affected parties. We found that about 128 (35 percent) of the 361 formal
consultations initiated from 1992 through 1999 took longer than 135 days to
complete. Our analysis included consultations that might have had agreed-
upon extensions. Although Carlsbad officials believe many of the 128 formal
consultations exceeded 135 days because of agreed- upon extensions, they
have not performed a complete analysis to demonstrate this. The Service's
regional offices are responsible for reviewing and approving HCPs, and the
targeted time frames for processing them differ depending on the HCPs'
potential impact. Of the 40 HCPs associated with the Carlsbad office, we
found that 11 of 26 (42 percent) were not Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

processed within the Service's targeted time frames. For the remaining 14
HCPs, 13 were still ongoing or had been withdrawn, and the Carlsbad office
could not provide complete data to determine whether the targeted time
frames had been met for the other plan.

We attempted to determine why some projects exceed the Service's recommended
or targeted time frames for completion by analyzing 13 consultations and
HCPs in detail. However, because of insufficient documentation, we could not
make such a determination. Specifically, the results of key events, such as
meetings between Carlsbad officials and an applicant, were not always
documented. And when documentation did exist, it was not sufficiently
detailed to explain the actions taken by the Carlsbad office. According to
Carlsbad officials, the factors that significantly affect their ability to
meet recommended time frames include workload, staff shortages, staff
turnover, and agreed- upon extensions to allow the federal agencies or
applicants time to gather and analyze additional information.

Executive Order No. 12862 requires executive departments and agencies to
make their complaint systems easily accessible to the public and to provide
a means to address customers' complaints. The Service's current customer
service policy does not address the need for a complaint system. Despite
this, the Carlsbad office has established an informal system for handling
complaints. Typically, the Carlsbad office refers complaints to a supervisor
or branch or division chief for resolution. However, supervisors may or may
not document the concerns raised or how they were resolved. Furthermore,
there are no written procedures on how to (1) handle complaints nor a
central file to determine how complaints were resolved and (2) collect and
analyze complaints to ensure that root causes of dissatisfaction are
identified and fixed. According to Carlsbad officials, more serious
complaints, such as recurring problems with an employee's conduct, are
documented in the employee's performance evaluations, which could form the
basis for a pay reduction or removal.

This report makes several recommendations to improve the operations of the
Carlsbad office, including the management of its endangered species
workload, and the overall operations of the Service, including its ability
to monitor field office operations and be more responsive to customer
complaints. In commenting on our draft report, the Department of the
Interior said that it generally agreed with the findings and supported the
recommendations in the report. The Department stated that the Service is
already taking actions to implement some of the recommendations, such as
improving its documentation and workload- tracking system and is

Page 4 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

actively considering other actions, such as reviewing its customer service
policy to determine appropriate revisions in accordance with applicable
departmental requirements.

In 1973, the Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to protect plant
and animal species whose survival is at risk. The Secretary of the Interior,
through the Fish and Wildlife Service, generally is responsible for
implementing the act for freshwater and land species. Section 9 of the act,
its primary species protection provision, and the act's implementing
regulations generally prohibit the taking- killing, harming, or harassing-
of threatened or endangered fish and wildlife species that are federally
listed. In conjunction with this provision, the act also established two
important processes that provide for the protection of listed species- the
consultation process, under section 7, and the habitat conservation planning
process, under section 10. The Service's field offices, like Carlsbad, are
responsible for, among other things, implementing sections 7 and 10 of the
act.

Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to determine
whether a proposed action that is federally authorized, carried out, or
funded is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species or adversely modify or destroy its critical habitat. To
determine this, the Service conducts informal and formal consultations.
Informal consultations, which precede formal consultations, may include
discussions of whether a listed species inhabits the proposed action area
and what affect the action may have on the species. Formal consultations are
conducted when a federal agency determines that its actions may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat and submits a written request to
initiate formal consultation. From these consultations, the field office
writes a biological opinion of whether the proposed action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely affect
its critical habitat. If this is likely to occur, the biological opinion
will propose reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed action, if
they are available. If the federal agency or landowner agrees to a suggested
alternative, the consultation is concluded and the proposed action may
proceed. If jeopardy is unlikely but an incidental take could still occur,
the biological opinion will provide reasonable and prudent measures to
minimize the impact of the take.

Likewise, section 10 of the act requires that landowners engaged in
activities likely to cause the incidental taking of listed species, but not
requiring federal authorization or funding, develop an HCP and obtain a
Background

Page 5 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

permit allowing for the incidental take. An HCP specifies, among other
things, what measures will be taken to minimize and mitigate the adverse
effects on listed species. The Service's field offices are responsible for
assisting the applicant in preparing the HCP, ensuring that the HCP and the
associated documents are complete, and coordinating with the appropriate
regional office throughout development, approval, and implementation. Once a
field office accepts a proposed plan as complete, the field office and the
regional office jointly review the feasibility of the draft HCP. The
regional office cannot approve a plan and issue an incidental take permit if
doing so would appreciably reduce the species' chances of survival and
recovery, among other things. In California and Nevada, the California/
Nevada operations office issues the HCPs and associated incidental take
permits.

During our review, we found that the Carlsbad office did not have effective
systems for tracking its workload of consultations and HCPs. The manual logs
that the Carlsbad office used to track consultations were incomplete and
contained inaccurate data. Similar problems existed in the nationwide
database that headquarters maintained and the Carlsbad office used to track
its HCPs. Furthermore, the Carlsbad office had not instituted proper
internal controls to ensure that all actions and events associated with the
consultation and HCP process were promptly and accurately documented and
that those records were readily available for examination. As a result, the
Carlsbad office could not determine with any certainty how many
consultations or HCPs it had under way, whether its actions were completed
on time, or how long applicants had been involved in these processes. The
Service and its Carlsbad office are taking actions to address these
problems. These actions include implementing a computerized project tracking
system for the Carlsbad office's consultation and HCP workload, improving
the accuracy of data in the headquarters' HCP database, and implementing a
centralized filing system in the Carlsbad office.

The Service has no requirements for how field offices track their workload.
Service headquarters officials said that the field offices use a variety of
systems to track workload, but they were not aware of the specific systems
that each of them use. The Carlsbad office had developed a manual tracking
system for formal and informal consultations to help manage its workload and
provide headquarters with data to justify staffing and funding needs. We
reviewed the manual consultation logs for fiscal years 1992 through 1999 to
determine their completeness and accuracy. The Service Is

Working to Correct Problems in Its Tracking of Consultations and HCP
Workload

Carlsbad's System to Track Consultations Was Incomplete and Inaccurate

Page 6 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

According to the logs, the Carlsbad office entered into 646 informal and 380
formal consultations during this period. 2 We estimate that the logs were
incomplete and inaccurate for 769 (75 percent) of 1,026 informal and formal
consultations that were recorded. 3 These logs, however, did not capture all
of the office's consultations. According to Carlsbad officials, all of the
informal consultations were not recorded because the staff were too busy and
forgot to do so or did not consider the consultation significant enough to
warrant documenting. From the entries that were made, we determined that the
logs were incomplete and inaccurate with respect to identifying the dates
that the consultations began or were completed. Figure 1 illustrates the
extent to which the formal and informal consultation logs were incomplete
and inaccurate.

2 We did not include 52 formal consultations that occurred internally within
the Service, such as consultations with a Service's wildlife refuge. 3 All
sampling errors for estimates are calculated at the 95- percent confidence
level and are contained in appendix II.

Page 7 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Figure 1: The Completeness and Accuracy of Consultation Logs, Fiscal Years
1992 Through 1999

Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Carlsbad office.

We selected 30 formal consultations and 30 informal consultations that had
been logged with both beginning and completion dates to determine whether
the dates recorded on the logs were supported by source documents and were
accurate. From the results of our sampling analysis, we projected that the
beginning or completion dates on the logs were unsupported for 47 percent of
the formal consultations and for 70 percent of the informal ones.

We also selected 30 informal consultations that did not have either the
beginning or the completion dates recorded on the logs to determine whether
the corresponding files also had incomplete documentation. We found
documentation for the missing dates in the files for 26 (87 percent) of the
30 sampled consultations.

Number of consultations 0 200

400 600

800 1,000

1,200 Informal

Formal Total

Consultations logged without beginning and/ or completion dates
Consultations logged with inaccurate beginning and/ or completion dates
Consultations logged with accurate beginning and completion dates

318 81 230 140

98 159 399

370 257

Page 8 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

The Service's field offices rely on a nationwide database administered by
headquarters to track the status of HCPs. According to headquarters
officials, this database is maintained to justify budget requests and tracks
HCPs by capturing key information. Key information includes the date when an
applicant initiated a request for an incidental take permit, the date when a
complete application package- including the HCP- was received by the
regional office, and the date when the HCP was approved and the incidental
take permit was issued by the regional office.

The Service's nationwide database identified 40 HCPs associated with the
Carlsbad office that were under way or completed. We reviewed the database
for these 40 plans to ascertain whether it contained key information on
their development and processing. We found that the Service's database was
incomplete and contained errors. These problems limited the database's
usefulness as a management tool for determining how long it takes to
complete HCPs. Figure 2 illustrates the extent to which the HCP database was
incomplete and inaccurate in terms of initial contact dates, the dates when
the regional office received a complete application, and the date when a
plan was approved and the incidental take permit was issued. The Service's
HCP

Database Was Incomplete and Contained Inaccurate Information

Page 9 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Figure 2: The Completeness and Accuracy of 40 HCPs

Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Carlsbad office.

The HCP database did not identify the dates when the applicants initially
contacted the Carlsbad office for 15 of the 40 HCPs. The Carlsbad office
provided us with source documentation for 23 of the 25 remaining plans that
showed when the applicants initially contacted the office. However, in all
instances, the dates recorded in the database differed from the dates on the
source documents- varying from over 2 years prior to the recorded date to
almost 5 years after the recorded date. The office could not locate source
documents for the other two plans. Furthermore, although the office provided
source documentation for 20 plans with completed package dates in the
database, in all instances, the dates on the source documents were different
from the dates recorded in the database- varying from 38 days prior to a
recorded date to 427 days after that date. Finally, for 27 plans with
issuance or permit expiration dates in the

Number of HCPs 0 10

20 30

40 Initial contact date

Complete package date

Plan approval date

No source documentation Data complete but did not agree with source
documentation Data complete and agreed with source documentation In progress
or terminated Data missing in the HCP database

2 23

15 1

26 13 20

20

Page 10 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

database, 26 had dates that agreed with the source documentation provided by
the Carlsbad office. The one plan that did not agree had a difference of 30
days between the recorded date and the actual date. As of August 2000, 10
plans were still in progress; consequently, the database did not contain
issuance dates. In addition, three of the plans had been terminated or
withdrawn. The database did not reflect the termination or withdrawal date
for these three plans.

Carlsbad officials informed us that staff at the Portland regional office
were supposed to enter the data into this database using information
received from the Carlsbad office when the plan and other documentation were
submitted for the regional office's review and approval. According to
Service officials, for the database to become operational, regional staff
had to enter an initial contact date for each HCP. We found that the
database contained the same month and day for when the applicant initially
contacted the Carlsbad office about the preparation of a plan for 18 of the
40 HCPs. According to the Service, this occurred because all three elements
of a date- the month, day, and year- had to be entered for the database to
accept the initial contact date. Attempts by regional office staff to enter
just a year or a month and a year resulted in erroneous dates due to
computer programming problems. However, because the Service had not defined
what date should be used as the initial contact date and because older HCPs
did not have all three elements of a date documented, the region did not
have the actual date to enter in many cases. According to the Service, these
problems have been recognized and corrective action is under way.
Specifically, the Service has defined the “date [when] assistance
[was] initiated” for all regional offices, and staff are in the
process of reprogramming the date text field in the database so it will
accept only years or months and years when all three elements of a date are
unknown.

Concerning problems with the completed package date in the database, Service
officials stated that they corrected this problem by defining this date for
all regional offices as the date when the regional office receives a
complete application forwarded by the field office.

Page 11 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Federal internal control standards and the Service's guidelines specify the
actions that should be followed to help ensure that major performance and
management challenges and the areas at greatest risk of fraud, waste, abuse,
and mismanagement are being addressed. 4 Specifically, internal control
standards state that transactions should be promptly recorded to maintain
their relevance to management in controlling operations and making decisions
and to help ensure that all transactions are completely and accurately
recorded. Furthermore, the standards stipulate that all transactions and
other significant events need to be clearly documented, that the
documentation should be readily available for examination, and that all
documentation and records should be properly managed and maintained.

Moreover, the Service's operating guidelines state,

“documentation of the steps in the informal consultation process is
essential to its continued utility and success. The administrative file
should contain records of phone contacts, including names of the caller, the
purpose of the call as it relates to the proposed action or action area, and
any advice or recommendations provided by the Service's biologist. A meeting
can be easily documented by a letter to appropriate parties that summarizes
the meeting results, particularly any Service concerns and
recommendations.”

In addition to the delays and inaccuracies in recording the transactions
associated with consultations and HCPs, the selected project files that we
reviewed were incomplete. To illustrate, for the nine formal consultation
project files that we examined, the only document in each file was the
Carlsbad office's biological opinion. The files did not contain evidence of
phone records or other documents that could be used to verify when a project
began or the advice or recommended actions that the Carlsbad officials
provided the applicants. Without this information, there has often been
confusion between the office and its customers on what was agreed to and
why. We also found that the Carlsbad office's files were not well
maintained. Specifically, some project files contained documents that were
not organized in any manner, and in other files, documents were missing.
This lack of organization makes it difficult to determine when, why, and how
often events, such as suggested avoidance or mitigation actions, occurred.

4 See Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, U. S.
General Accounting Office (1999) and Endangered Species Consultation
Handbook, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (Mar. 1998). Carlsbad Did Not Follow

Federal Standards and Service Guidelines for Documenting Actions Related to
Consultations and HCPs

Page 12 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

In testimony on September 14, 2000, before the House Committee on Resources,
the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service said that the Carlsbad office
was developing a computerized, comprehensive database to improve project
management, tracking, and record keeping. 5 The Director said that the
database would provide biologists and managers with an improved system to
track the progress and the status of consultations, HCPs, and other time-
sensitive documents. According to the Director, the database will, among
other things, improve the documentation of project milestones, important
meetings, and agency decision- making. Key information that will be captured
by the database includes a history of the consultation, the dates when the
project started and ended, and the outcome of the consultation, such as a
biological opinion. Furthermore, the database will be an essential tool for
determining whether the office is complying with time frames for the
consultation process. We visited the Carlsbad office in mid- October 2000
and found the database to be operational; however, we did not check its
reliability because it was too early in the implementation process.

In a memorandum dated August 30, 2000, the Service's Director requested that
the regions update and verify the information contained in the HCP database.
This request included procedures for maintaining up- to- date and accurate
information within the HCP database. The procedures also provided standard
definitions of data fields to ensure consistent entry of information.
According to the Service, in October 2000, the regional offices completed
the data entry and verification.

Finally, in testimony on September 14, 2000, the Service's Director also
stated that the Carlsbad office is developing a centralized filing system
that will integrate programmatic activities into consolidated project files.
According to the Director, this action, in conjunction with the new
projecttracking system, should allow the Carlsbad office to comply with
federal internal control standards and the Service's guidelines for
documenting actions related to consultations and HCPs.

5 Testimony of Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, before the House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources, regarding the administration of the Endangered
Species Act by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife office, Carlsbad, California
(Sept. 14, 2000). Efforts Are Under Way to

Improve the Systems for Determining Consultation and HCP Workload and
Internal Controls

Page 13 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

The Fish and Wildlife Service does not monitor whether its regional offices
or field offices comply with internal guidelines for completing
consultations and processing HCPs. At the Carlsbad office, we found that 35
percent of the completed formal consultations exceeded the 135- day time
frame established by the Service. In addition, 42 percent of the HCPs
submitted by the Carlsbad office for processing exceeded the time frames set
by the Service's guidelines.

Once formal consultations begin, under its guidelines, the Service has 135
days to render a biological opinion that specifies whether the project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, unless
extensions are requested and agreed to by affected parties. The Carlsbad
office's logs showed that 380 formal consultations had been entered into and
completed from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal 1999. 6 Of these, 299 (79
percent) had the dates recorded for when the consultation was begun and
completed, and 81 (21 percent) did not. As mentioned earlier, we found the
dates on these logs to be incomplete and inaccurate. However, when we
compared the average completion times from the log's data with the average
completion times we developed from our sample, we concluded that the
differences were not statistically significant and that we could use the
logs to calculate how many consultations exceeded the Service's time frame.
In addition, we provided Carlsbad officials with a list of the 81 formal
consultations that had been logged with incomplete data. Carlsbad officials
provided dates for 52 of these 81 projects, giving us a universe of 361
projects from which to calculate how long it took to complete them. 7 Our
calculations determined that 128 (35 percent) of the formal consultations
exceeded the Service's time frame of 135 days. We analyzed only whether a
project exceeded the recommended time frames- not the number of days
exceeded. Our analysis also included consultations that may have had agreed-
upon extensions. Although Carlsbad officials believe that many of the 128
formal consultations exceeded 135 days because of agreed- upon time
extensions, they have not performed a complete analysis to demonstrate this.

6 The office's logs identified 391 formal consultations entered into from
fiscal years 1992 through 1999, but 11 were still in progress. 7 For this
calculation, we included 10 of the 11 projects that were still in progress.
We did not include one project because the Carlsbad office could not
determine the start date. Some Formal

Consultations and HCPs Exceeded Processing Time Frames

Some Formal Consultations Exceeded Service's Time Frames

Page 14 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

In testimony on September 14, 2000, the Service's Director stated that the
Carlsbad office's management has stressed to its staff the expectation and
need for meeting deadlines. The Director said that the Carlsbad office has
hired additional biologists to help handle its consultation workload and is
working to improve coordination with other federal agencies to clarify
priorities and needs.

The Service has no guidelines for how long it should take to complete an
HCP. According to Service officials, most of the time spent on HCPs is
needed by the applicant to develop the initial plan and then modify it to
comply with the Service's guidelines before a field office can accept it as
a completed application. However, once a regional office receives a complete
application for its review and approval, the Service has established
targeted time frames for the regional office to process the application.
These time frames depend on the HCP's size, complexity, and potential
impact. 8 Specifically, as part of the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act, an environmental impact statement (EIS) usually
accompanies a large, complex, high- impact plan. A medium- size, medium-
complex, medium- impact plan is often accompanied by an environmental
assessment (EA), and a small, less complex, low- impact plan generally does
not need either an EIS or an EA. The Service's targeted time frame for
processing low- impact plans is less than 3 months from the receipt of a
complete application; for plans of medium impact, it is from 3 to 5 months;
and for high- impact plans, it is within 10 months. The Service allows these
targeted processing time frames to be exceeded for reasons such as
controversy regarding the project and staff or workload problems. Once a
complete application is received, the Service notifies the public that it
has a minimum of 30 days to review and comment on the HCP and any
environmental impact analysis. If the regional office approves the plan, it
issues an incidental take permit. In California and Nevada, the California/
Nevada operations office issues the HCP and associated incidental take
permits.

Since the HCP database contained many errors, it was not useful for
determining how many plans exceeded targeted time frames. Therefore, we
attempted to obtain from Carlsbad officials supporting information on

8 On December 20, 2000, the Service informed us that it had dropped
“complexity” as a criterion for determining recommended
processing time frames because it constituted subjective data. Some HCPs
Exceeded the

Service's Recommended Processing Times

Page 15 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

when the field office submitted its 40 HCPs to the Portland regional office,
the HCPs' level of impact, and when the plans were approved. As of July
1999, 13 of the 40 plans in the database were still in process or had been
withdrawn. Furthermore, the Carlsbad office could not provide the data
needed to determine whether targeted time frames had been met for one plan.
We used the data that we obtained for the remaining 26 plans and determined
that the Portland regional office and the California/ Neveda operations
office did not meet the targeted time frames for 11 plans (42 percent) that
it reviewed. The amount of time by which these dates were missed ranged from
about 20 days to about 880 days. The time frames were missed by less than 2
months for five plans, between 4 and 10 months for three plans, and by more
than 19 months for three plans. We did not conduct audit work at the
Portland regional office or the California/ Nevada operations office to
determine why the processing time frames were not met. According to the
Service, the processing times frames were not met because of the workload or
complexity of the projects.

The Service noted that since the Carlsbad office was becoming increasingly
involved in regional HCPs, it would become more difficult to meet targeted
processing time frames. Regional HCPs are large efforts that involve
multiple jurisdictions; provide coverage for a large number of listed and
unlisted species; involve large acreage with significant development and
habitat; and include participation by numerous landowners, developers,
environmental groups, and other stakeholders.

Furthermore, the Service noted that because of concerns that the public did
not have adequate time to comment on some HCPs, in June 2000, the Service
extended its targeted processing time frames. Specifically, the targeted
processing time frame for a medium- impact HCP was extended from 3- 5 months
to 4- 6 months. For large- scale, regional, or exceptionally complex HCPs,
the Service increased the minimum public comment period to 90 days unless
significant public participation occurs during the HCPs' development. For
HCPs with a 90- day comment period and/ or an EIS, the Service extended the
targeted processing time frame from 10 to 12 months. The targeted processing
time frame for low- impact HCPs remained at up to 3 months.

Page 16 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

The Service and the Carlsbad office do not gather information on why
consultations and HCPs exceed recommended or targeted time frames. As a
result, we attempted to determine why by analyzing 13 consultations and HCPs
in detail. From our review of project files, however, we could not determine
why it took so long to complete these projects. Specifically, key events,
such as meetings between Carlsbad officials and an applicant were not always
documented, and when documentation did exist, it did not always clearly
explain the office's actions. Carlsbad officials, however, identified the
following factors that they believe contribute to exceeding recommended time
frames for completing consultations: (1) the heavy workload, (2) the
inability to hire a sufficient number of staff, (3) the high rate of staff
turnover, and (4) the agreed- upon extensions requested by the applicant or
action agency to gather and analyze additional information. Since the
Service's guidelines pertain only to regional office processing of HCPs,
Carlsbad officials could not identify the reasons why targeted time frames
were exceeded.

Southern California, where the Carlsbad office is located, has tremendous
biological diversity and provides habitat for approximately 100 federally
listed species. With a projected population of 19 million people, southern
California is also one of the fastest growing regions in the United States.
According to the Service's Director, because the development that
accompanies population growth increases threats to endangered species, the
Carlsbad office has one of the heaviest endangered species workloads in the
nation.

The Carlsbad office's supervisor has recognized the demands of this
increasing workload. In a February 5, 1999, memorandum to the Manager of the
California/ Nevada operations office, the supervisor explained that the
office's consultation workload was projected to increase from 264
consultations in fiscal year 1998 to 341 consultations in fiscal year 1999-
a 29- percent increase. Furthermore, predevelopment consultations were
projected to increase from 900 in fiscal year 1998 to 957 in fiscal year
1999- a 6- percent increase. The memorandum also discussed the need to
provide additional technical assistance and coordination on several key
HCPs. The memorandum stated that the office's “ability to provide
increased technical assistance to the local jurisdictions on priority HCPs
and to expeditiously meet our Section 7 consultation requirements would be
hampered without additional funding and staffing.” The Service and the

Carlsbad Office Do Not Gather Information on Why Consultations and HCPs
Exceed Time Frames

The Carlsbad Office Has a Large Workload of Consultations and HCPs

Page 17 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Carlsbad officials stated that they have had problems with filling their
staffing needs. For the 5 fiscal years 1996 through 2000, the Carlsbad
office had an average of about 67 staff. During this period, the Carlsbad
office requested an average of 89 staff to handle the increasing workload
from development activities occurring in southern California. Therefore, the
level of staff on board averaged about 25 percent below the requested
levels.

For fiscal year 1999, the Carlsbad office requested about $7.37 million to
support 105.5 staff and justified this request primarily on the basis of
escalating large- scale HCPs affecting multiple species and numerous smaller
HCP commitments. However, the office was allocated about $4 million, or
$3.37 million less than requested. According to a February 1999 memorandum
from the Carlsbad Supervisor to the Manager of the Service's California/
Nevada operations office, that year's funding allocation was “grossly
inadequate to meet our needs, and will force us to forgo significant
conservation opportunities unless a shift is made in our workload.”
The Carlsbad office sought approval from the operations office to shift some
staff from recovery plan activities to regional HCPs that involved multiple
species. In October 1999, the Carlsbad office informed the operations office
that, as a result of its regional planning efforts, the completion of small-
scale HCPs and a variety of consultations had been delayed.

Headquarters and regional officials informed us that generally, the Service
has not been funded at its requested levels. As a result, each field office
receives less than what it requests.

To offset some of the impact of this staffing shortage, Carlsbad officials
stated that they managed their funding to allow them to fill some additional
positions near the end of the fiscal year. Specifically, they used the
salary savings obtained from high staff turnover and obtained some
additional funds from the Portland regional office to help pay the salaries
of these positions. For example, in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the Carlsbad
office had 20 and 11 more staff on board, respectively, than what the
funding allocation for these fiscal years could originally support. Table 1
presents detailed information about staffing levels during fiscal years 1996
through 2000. The Carlsbad Office Has

Been Unable to Hire the Requested Level of Staff

Page 18 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Table 1: The Number of Staff on Board, the Number Requested, and the Number
of Staff Positions Funded, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 2000

Fiscal year End- of- year onboard total Staff requested Positions funded

Difference between onboard and requested

staff Difference between funded

staffing levels and requested

1996 64 Not available 44.0 Not available Not available 1997 61 66.0 50.0
-5.00 -16.0 1998 57 76.0 63.0 -19.00 -13.0 1999 72 105.5 64.0 -33.50 -41.5
2000 81 108.5 77.0 -27.50 -31.5 Average 67 89.0 59.6 -21.25 -25.5

Note: On- board data include both career and temporary employees. Requested
staff for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 include half- staff years.

Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Carlsbad office.

From fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2000, the Carlsbad office averaged
about 13 staff losses per year, of which 10 staff (77 percent) were in
nonclerical positions. Nonclerical positions include biologists, computer
specialists, field and deputy field supervisors, geographers, and
administrative officers. We found that the office's separation rate for
nonclerical staff has been high when compared with Service- wide separation
rates for nonclerical staff in the same job series. To illustrate, during
fiscal year 1999, the Carlsbad office's separation rate for nonclerical
staff was 26 percent, whereas the Service's separation rate for these staff
was about 4 percent. Table 2 compares the separation rates of nonclerical
staff at the Carlsbad office with those in the same job series at the
Service for fiscal years 1997 through 2000. The Carlsbad Office Has

Had Problems With Retaining Staff

Page 19 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Table 2: Separation Rates of Staff in Nonclerical Positions From the
Carlsbad Field Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Fiscal Years 1997
Through 2000

Carlsbad Field Office a Service- wide a Fiscal year Total on- board staff at

the year's beginning Staff departures during the year Separation rate

Total on- board staff at the year's beginning

Staff departures

during the year Separation

rate

1997 42.00 5 11.9% 1,431 61 4.3% 1998 50.00 12 24.0% 1,517 52 3.4% 1999
50.00 13 26.0% 1,664 67 4.0% 2000 61.00 10 16.4% Not available Not available
Not available Average 50.75 10 19.7% 1,537 60 3.9%

Note: Data are for career employees only. Service- wide data exclude
Carlsbad data. a Comparison between Carlsbad field office and Service- wide
nonclerical positions is of staff in the same job series. Nonclerical
positions include biologists, computer specialists, field and deputy field
supervisors, geographers, and administrative officers.

Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Carlsbad office and the
Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data File.

Carlsbad officials noted that the high turnover rate was exacerbated by the
loss of biologists- who are key to handling most of the office's workload-
and the loss of experienced staff. For fiscal year 1999, we estimated that
the average separation rate of career biologists in the Carlsbad office was
about 17 percent compared with 4 percent Servicewide. Furthermore, of the 35
staff who left the Carlsbad office over the past 2 years, about 46 percent
were experienced. Carlsbad officials stated that the loss of the experienced
staff puts added pressure on supervisors and managers who have to train new
staff while responding to an increasingly heavy workload.

Carlsbad officials said that several factors have contributed to the
office's high staff turnover. Specifically, many employees cannot afford
housing in the Carlsbad area and, as a result, they have long commutes to
and from work. Moreover, because the office hires biologists at the GS- 9
through GS- 11 levels of pay, it is extremely hard to get recruits from
inside the government to come to Carlsbad. The biologists hired have little
training in the federal consultation and habitat conservation planning
processes, which initially limits their effectiveness. In addition, as
quickly as they become trained, other Service offices are recruiting them
because they have the reputation of being able to work well under the
pressures associated with a heavy workload and endangered species issues.
Furthermore, staff shortages compound the workload problem and eventually
cause the existing staff to seek other employment

Page 20 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

opportunities. Carlsbad officials also noted that the Service does not use
incentives to retain staff. For example, they stated that other federal
agencies use retention bonuses to keep staff.

In testimony in September 2000 before the House Committee on Resources, the
Service's Director indicated that the Carlsbad office had hired additional
staff to improve the office's ability to complete consultations and review
related environmental documents for other federal agencies and parties. The
Director confirmed that (1) the ability to retain experienced biologists is,
among other things, impaired by heavy workloads and the high cost of living
in southern California and (2) employees at the Carlsbad office gain
invaluable experience, training, and skills, which are actively sought by
and recruited by other field offices. In fiscal year 2000, seven biologists
left the Carlsbad office for other career opportunities.

Under the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations, formal
consultations generally are to be concluded and a biological opinion issued
in 135 days. This includes 90 days to complete the consultation and 45 days
to issue the final biological opinion. However, the act and its regulations
allow for consultation time frames to be extended. If the consultation is
only between the Service and another federal agency, the two agencies may
mutually agree to extend the consultation. The act and its implementing
regulations do not limit the length of this extension and, according to
Service officials, these extensions can go on for long periods of time.
However, if the consultation with a federal agency involves a third party
(e. g., a landowner or developer), the Service must notify the applicant of
the extension. The notification must state the reasons why a longer period
is needed, the information that is required to complete the consultation,
and the estimated date for completing the consultation. A consultation
involving an applicant cannot be extended for more than 60 days without the
applicant's consent.

In the Carlsbad office, the reasons for extending consultation time frames
include (1) the office's need for more time to analyze the data it received
from a federal agency or to prepare the final biological opinion or (2) the
other federal agency's need for more time to provide data or review the
draft biological opinion. In two of the formal consultations we reviewed,
the Carlsbad office obtained extensions to review information that the
applicant submitted and to prepare the biological opinion. The Service
extended the consultations by about 4 months for one project and 2- 1/ 2
months for the other. Time Frame Extensions

Can Be Approved

Page 21 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

The Service also has established targeted time frames for processing HCPs,
which can also be extended for such issues as controversy regarding the
project or staff or workload problems. We focused our review on the
operations of the Carlsbad field office. Since HCP processing is conducted
jointly by the field office and the regional office, we did not conduct
audit work to ascertain the reasons why HCPs were not processed within the
targeted time frames.

Executive Order No. 12862 (dated Sept. 11, 1993) established and implemented
customer service standards to guide the operations of executive branch
agencies. The standards are to ensure that the federal government provides
the highest quality service possible to the American people. According to
the executive order, all executive departments and agencies that directly
provide the public with significant services shall, among other things, post
customer service standards and measure results against them; make
information, services, and complaint systems easily accessible; and provide
a means to address customer complaints. To comply with the President's
initiative, as part of the National Performance Review (NPR) efforts, teams
of staff from various federal government agencies embarked on a series of
benchmarking studies, one of which was to determine which businesses- public
and private- are doing the best job of customer complaint resolution. The
best complaint systems identified had, among other things, processes to make
it easy for customers to complain through customer help telephone lines, 1-
800 numbers, or complaint/ comment cards. The best systems also had fully
automated and integrated information systems in which to enter complaint
data that can be analyzed and used to identify and fix root causes of the
dissatisfaction and determine the future direction for product and service
improvements.

To implement the requirements of Executive Order No. 12862, the Service
issued Customer Service Policy 96- 02 (effective, Aug. 6, 1996). According
to the policy, all of the Service's employees are expected to fully comply
with the spirit and intent of the standards that were established to guide
their actions as public servants. The policy establishes six standards-
among them is that (1) customers be treated with courtesy and responded to
in a timely and professional manner and (2) employees maintain a
professional appearance and positive attitude. However, the Service's policy
does not address how to handle customer complaints or how to make
information services and complaint systems easily accessible to customers,
as directed by the executive order. The Service's

Guidance and Carlsbad's Implementation of the Customer Complaint Program
Could Be Improved

Page 22 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Despite this lack of guidance, Carlsbad officials said that they take
complaints seriously, and they have established an informal system for
handling them. Specifically, the office accepts customer feedback in various
forms, including letters, E- mail, in- person meetings, and telephone calls.
According to the Carlsbad officials, complaints are routed to the supervisor
of the affected employee or to the branch or division chief that has
responsibility for the specific project. Depending on the nature of the
complaint, the line supervisor may elevate the action to senior management
or handle the complaint directly. Supervisors maintain their own files for
the complaints they handle. The types of complaints that the office receives
vary. For example, some complaints stem from misunderstandings. When a
complaint is more serious, such as an employee's treating a customer harshly
or in an unprofessional manner, the immediate supervisor has the
responsibility to counsel the affected employee and identify corrective
actions. Carlsbad officials stated that supervisors may or may not document
these types of complaints. However, if a supervisor receives recurring
complaints about an employee's performance and conduct, the supervisor is to
addresses the issue through the employee's annual performance plan, which
has indicators relating to quality of work, teamwork, and customer service.
An employee who does not perform the critical elements related to these
indicators can be placed on a performance improvement plan, which is a
prerequisite for a reduction in grade or removal.

The Carlsbad office's informal customer complaint system does not record and
classify data on complaints so they can be analyzed and used to identify
trends and solutions to common problems. Instead, Carlsbad management relies
on being apprised of complaints in weekly supervisor and staff meetings.
Management also relies on the supervisors, who handle the complaints, to
identify any patterns or frequency of complaints against specific employees.
However, Carlsbad officials said that each supervisor might track complaints
differently. The Carlsbad office also does not have standard documentation
requirements or a centralized filing system for the complaints it receives.

The Service stated that it has been working to improve its customer service
program. Specifically, the Service has designated the development of a
customer feedback process as a critical component of its Strategic and
Annual Performance Plans prepared under the Government Performance and
Results Act. The Service has also placed a site on its Webpage, where
customers can voice concerns or provide comments. An additional Website is
offered by the Service's Midwest region.

Page 23 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Furthermore, although not required, the Service has been working with the
Department to create a centralized customer complaint system.

The Service noted that the Department established a task force to recommend
ways to improve its customer service. The task force recommended that the
Department establish an automated database system that would capture, track,
and report on customers' complaints Department- wide. According to the
Service, this proposed on- line information system would be designed to
support the performance of the front- line staff who interact with customers
and assist them in answering customers' inquiries quickly and accurately.
The system would compile complaint information electronically in order to
better align services to meet customers' expectations. A complaint data
report would be generated for managers to indicate the root cause of
complaints, when a complaint is resolved, and related statistics. Service
officials said they fully support this Department- wide proposal and believe
that an integrated database system reduces the duplication of multiple
customer systems across the bureaus and allows for a broader understanding
of customer expectations on services and products offered by the Department
of the Interior.

The Carlsbad office is developing a computerized project- tracking system
for its consultation and HCP projects. This system, if properly implemented,
should improve the office's record keeping and its ability to track the
status of projects and help determine why they are in that status. Accurate
information on the office's workload should also help the office justify its
staffing and budget requests. The new system could also improve project
management by allowing office managers to determine how long an applicant
has been involved in the consultation or HCP process and whether the
recommended time frames for completing consultations and the targeted time
frames for processing HCPs have been exceeded. Also, although the Fish and
Wildlife Service has no requirements for how its field offices track their
workload, if the new tracking system is successful, other field offices
might want to use it to obtain the same benefits.

Although the new tracking system will potentially contain much needed
information on the status of a project, project files need to be maintained
to document and confirm that the data in the system are correct. The
Carlsbad office does not maintain its project files in accordance with
federal internal control standards and the Service's guidelines. Currently,
project files are located in three different buildings instead of being
centrally located and readily available for examination. Furthermore,
Conclusions

Page 24 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

project files often do not contain a complete history of the project,
including written documentation of the proposals and the agreements reached
between the office and its applicants or other federal agencies. Without
this information, there has often been confusion between the office and its
customers on what was agreed to and why. In addition, without adequate
documentation, managers and others have a difficult time determining whether
the status of a project is justified. For example, if the Service and an
applicant agree upon an extension of time to complete a consultation and
that information is not in the files, managers may not know that the reason
why a project exceeded recommended time frames was justified and supported.
The Service has also embarked upon an effort to have its offices
periodically verify and correct the information in its nationwide HCP
database.

Although installing a new tracking system and verifying the HCP database are
steps in the right direction, these initiatives do not address the Carlsbad
office's ability to complete its consultations and HCP projects within the
recommended or targeted time frames. The Carlsbad office will still have
difficulty accomplishing this if it is not able to do something about its
staffing problems. An inability to hire new staff and retain existing,
experienced staff has made it difficult for the Carlsbad office to meet the
demands of its workload.

Finally, the Service's customer service policy does not address how to
handle complaints or how to make complaint systems easily accessible to its
customers, as discussed in Executive Order No. 12862. Although the Carlsbad
office has developed an informal process for handling customer complaints,
this process does not ensure managers that all complaints received are
directed to the proper office personnel and are properly resolved. It also
does not ensure that complaint data are centrally collected and analyzed to
help ensure that root causes of the dissatisfaction are identified and
fixed. Furthermore, Carlsbad's informal process does not include procedures
for recording and documenting complaints and their resolution. The Service
stated that neither it nor the Department has a centralized customer
complaint system but one has been recommended for Department- wide
implementation when funds become available. The Service agrees with the need
to improve its customer service program but would prefer to support the
Departmentwide proposal, which, it feels, would reduce the duplication of
multiple customer service systems across Interior's various bureaus.

Page 25 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

To improve the Service's overall operations, including customer service, and
specifically the operations of its Carlsbad field office, we recommend that
the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, to do the following:

? Ensure that the Carlsbad field office's new computerized project- tracking
system for consultations and HCPs is properly implemented and that
procedures are developed to periodically review the data to determine that
they are promptly and accurately entered.

? Assess whether a computerized project- tracking system, such as the one
being implemented in the Carlsbad office, will allow consistency and
accuracy in obtaining and reporting information on the status of
consultations and the HCP workload and, if so, consider whether such a
system should be implemented Service- wide.

? Ensure that the Carlsbad field office complies with federal internal
control standards by centrally locating all files on consultations and HCPs.
Furthermore, the Carlsbad office should develop procedures to periodically
review these files to determine if they contain the complete history of the
projects, including documentation of all agreements between the applicant
and the Service.

? Identify and assess options for improving the Carlsbad office's ability to
hire and retain staff.

? Revise its customer service policy to include specific requirements for a
customer complaint system and make that system easily accessible to the
public. Furthermore, if the development of a Department- wide customer
complaint system does not proceed, the Service should implement its own
system. This system should include, at a minimum, requirements for written
procedures on how complaints will be received, directed, resolved, and
documented. The system should also provide for complaint data to be
centrally collected and analyzed to ensure that the root causes of
dissatisfaction are identified and fixed. In addition, the Service's system
could be used as a pilot or model for a Department- wide system.

We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft copy of our report
for comment. The Department generally agreed with the findings and supported
the recommendations of the report. Its letter commenting on the report
appears in appendix III. The enclosure to the Department's letter (which is
not included in app. III) made several technical and clarifying comments,
which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. In its comments, the
Department stated that the Service has already initiated actions on some of
the report's recommendations and is actively considering actions to
implement the other recommendations. Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 26 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Specifically, the Carlsbad office has implemented a computerized
projecttracking database that is integrated with a centrally located filing
system for fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Carlsbad office is developing
quality control standards for the tracking system to ensure prompt and
accurate data entry, periodic reviews of the database and files, and
training on the use of the database. The Department stated that the Carlsbad
project tracking system would need to be evaluated and compared with other
field office systems to determine whether it, or something similar, can be
used to provide more consistency in tracking workload throughout the
Service. In addition, the Carlsbad office has identified several mechanisms
to improve the documentation of agreements between applicants and their
office and is working to streamline recruitment and identify incentives to
retain experienced staff biologists. Finally, the Department stated that the
Service plans to review its customer service policy for appropriate
revisions in accordance with applicable departmental requirements.

In its comments, the Department also raised a concern about our analysis of
the number of formal consultations that exceeded the recommended 135- day
time frame. The Department stated that although the report appropriately
recognizes that some of the consultations could have agreed- upon extensions
and therefore could have been completed within allowable time frames, the
report did not attempt to assess the degree to which consultations were
late. The Department stated that on the basis of the Carlsbad office's
analysis of 20 biological opinions issued from 40 to 60 days after the 135-
day formal consultation time frame, 8 (40 percent) should not be considered
late. Specifically, one consultation had an approved time extension; another
was initiated without the required information; two received information
needed to complete the consultation after it was initiated, and the Service
would have been justified in requesting an extension; for one consultation,
the applicant was provided with a draft biological opinion within 35 days of
its initiation; and for three consultations, we did not have correct
initiation and completion dates. Our report states that we did not attempt
to determine how many consultations had agreed- upon time extensions. The
purpose of our analysis was only to demonstrate how many consultations
exceeded the 135- day time frame- not the number of days and not whether the
additional time was justified. The fact remains that the Carlsbad office had
the wrong information recorded in its logs for all eight projects.

The Department also said that we should more clearly indicate that the time
frames for processing HCPs are only targets and that given the complexity of
the projects in the Carlsbad office, it would not be unusual for some
projects to exceed these time frames. While we see little

Page 27 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

practical difference between recommended time frames and time frame targets,
we revised our report to use this terminology. Our report already stated
that the Service allows the time frames to be exceeded for such reasons as
project controversy and staff or workload problems.

To determine how the Carlsbad office tracks its workload of consultations,
we reviewed the logs that the Carlsbad office maintained for fiscal years
1992- the first year that the Carlsbad office began operating- through 1999.
We also discussed with Carlsbad officials how these logs were utilized and
maintained during this period. We reviewed the logs for both informal and
formal consultations.

We analyzed the completeness of the information in the logs by ascertaining
whether the logs identified the dates when the informal or formal
consultations began and were completed. In agreement with your offices, we
did not include formal consultations that occurred internally within the
Fish and Wildlife Service, such as consultations with a Service wildlife
refuge.

To assess the accuracy of the information on the logs, we used statistical
sampling. Specifically, we selected the entries for 30 informal and 30
formal consultations that had been logged with both beginning and completion
dates and reviewed the Carlsbad office's files to verify that documentation
existed to support those dates. In addition, we provided Carlsbad officials
with a list of formal consultations that did not have beginning and/ or
completion dates on the logs. Our purpose was to get as many dates as
possible so we would have better confidence in estimating how long it takes
to complete formal consultations. Lastly, we sampled the entries for 30
informal consultations that did not have the beginning and/ or completion
dates recorded on the logs to determine whether documentation existed in the
files to support a date. The sampling error associated with our estimates is
discussed in appendix II.

To determine how the office tracks its HCP workload, we started by obtaining
a computer printout for each plan in the Service's nationwide HCP database
that had been processed through the Carlsbad office. To assess completeness,
we reviewed the printout to ascertain if three key dates- the date the
process began, the date the regional office received a complete application
package from the Carlsbad office, and the date that the process was
completed with the issuance of an incidental take permit- were recorded in
the database. To assess the accuracy of the database's information, we asked
Carlsbad officials to provide us with Scope and

Methodology

Page 28 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

documentation supporting these three key events and compared the dates on
the documents with the dates in the database.

To determine the extent to which the office is complying with the Service's
recommended time frames for completing formal consultations, we used the 30
sampled formal consultations from the Carlsbad logs and calculated the time
expended between the beginning and completion dates. We separately
calculated the time expended for the remainder of the consultations recorded
on the logs, including those consultations for which Carlsbad officials
subsequently provided dates. We compared the results of our calculations for
the 30 samples with the other calculations and determined that there were no
statistically significant differences between them. Because the differences
were not statistically significant, we used the logs to calculate the length
of time taken to complete formal consultations for the entire universe of
those for which we had beginning and completion dates.

We also determined whether the Service's targeted time frames for processing
HCPs submitted by the Carlsbad office were being met by the Portland
regional office. To accomplish this, we calculated the amount of time it
took to process each HCP using the information we obtained from the Carlsbad
office on the date when the regional office received an approved information
package from the Carlsbad office and the date when the process was completed
with the issuance of an incidental take permit. We then obtained information
on the HCP's potential impact from the Carlsbad office and determined
whether the plans met the Service's targeted processing time frames for that
type of HCP.

To determine why some consultations did not meet recommended time frames, we
reviewed 13 projects that were among those that took the longest time to
complete. We examined the files of each project to ascertain if they
contained information indicating why the consultations took so long. Because
of a lack of information in the project files, we were unable to make this
determination. We discussed this issue with Carlsbad officials, who
identified several factors that they believe contribute to their office's
inability to meet recommended time frames.

To assess how staffing at the Carlsbad office affected the length of time it
took to complete consultations and process HCPs, we held discussions with
Carlsbad officials about their staffing needs and how the office justified
them in its budget requests. We also obtained and reviewed copies of budget
requests for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 that the Carlsbad office
submitted to the California/ Nevada operations office and

Page 29 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

the Portland regional office. In addition, we obtained data on the amount of
funds the Carlsbad office received from the Portland regional office for
staffing and compared funded levels with those requested. We discussed
staffing shortages at the Carlsbad office and factors that contribute to the
office's ability to hire and retain staff. For fiscal years 1997 through
2000, we calculated and compared the annual separation rates of career staff
in selected positions (1) at the Carlsbad office, using data provided by the
Carlsbad office, and (2) at the Service, using the Office of Personnel
Management's Central Personnel Data File.

To determine if the Carlsbad office has a system for registering and
resolving complaints by customers, we reviewed Executive Order No. 12862,
NCR's report entitled Serving the American Public: Best Practices for
Resolving Customer Complaints, and the Service's policies and procedures for
dealing with customer service and complaint systems. We also discussed
customer service policies with the Service's headquarters officials and
discussed how the office handles complaints with Carlsbad officials.

Finally, we obtained detailed information on three projects to illustrate
the concerns of individuals who have either sought consultations or applied
for permits from the Carlsbad office and to gain the field office's
perspective on these concerns. We held discussions with the individuals that
raised the concerns on these projects and reviewed the documentation they
provided. With their permission, we discussed their concerns with Carlsbad
officials and obtained the field office's perspective on them. We also
obtained and reviewed supporting documentation for the positions that
Carlsbad staff had taken on these projects.

We discussed the results of our work with officials from the Carlsbad field
office, the California/ Nevada operations office, the Portland regional
office, and Service headquarters. We conducted our review from February 2000
through January 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretary of the Interior; the Director, Fish and Wildlife Service; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We
will make copies available to others upon request.

Page 30 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 3841.
Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 31 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

We spoke with 25 individuals who were involved in consultations regarding
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or had applied for incidental take
permits under the habitat conservation planning (HCP) process from the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Carlsbad field office. These individuals had
expressed concerns about the Carlsbad office's operations. We asked many of
these individuals to discuss their concerns with us, provide us with
supporting documentation, and let us obtain Carlsbad officials' perspective
on these concerns. However, only three individuals provided supporting
documentation and consented to this discussion. These individuals were
involved with the following projects: (1) the development of a golf course
and resort and its affect on the Peninsular bighorn sheep, (2) the
construction of a residential community and its affect on the coastal
California gnatcatcher, 1 and (3) a utility company's maintenance operations
and its affect on the Quino checkerspot butterfly. For each of these three
projects, Carlsbad officials provided us with explanations, documentation,
or scientific justification for their actions.

A development company wanted to build a golf course and resort community
outside of Palm Springs, California. To obtain municipal, county, state, and
federal approval for the project, the developer was required to address
multiple environmental issues. Several of these issues focused on the
project's impacts on federally listed endangered species, including the
desert tortoise, the southwestern willow flycatcher, and the desert slender
salamander as well as the Peninsular bighorn sheep. When the developer
initially proposed the project, the Peninsular big horn sheep was listed by
the state of California as threatened and was proposed to be federally
listed. 2 Although the developer had to consider impacts on several species,
the concerns he shared with us focused on Peninsular bighorn sheep.

Before construction on the project could begin, the developer needed to
obtain a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) because of the project's anticipated impacts on waters of
the United States. The Corps, in turn, determined that the project could
affect federally listed and proposed species. Therefore, in accordance with

1 The coastal California gnatcatcher is a small bird that inhabits scrub
vegetation in southern California. 2 The Service listed the Peninsular
bighorn sheep as endangered on March 18, 1998. Appendix I: The Carlsbad
Office's Position on

Concerns Raised About Three Projects First Project: Impacts of a Proposed
Golf Course and Resort Development on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 32 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

the Endangered Species Act, the Corps was required to initiate a section 7
consultation with the Service to determine whether the project's impacts
would jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.

The developer had four primary concerns regarding how the Service handled
the Corps' consultation. First, the developer was frustrated over the time
it had taken to move the project forward and did not agree with the
Service's jeopardy determination regarding Peninsular bighorn sheep that was
conveyed in a conference opinion to the Corps. 3 Second, the developer
believed that the reasonable and prudent alternative that the Service
offered to avoid the jeopardy determination was not technologically or
economically feasible. Third, the developer was frustrated that Carlsbad
officials had required him to complete several redesigns of the project to
comply with concerns about the project's impacts on Peninsular bighorn sheep
but then rejected each revision. Fourth, the developer believed that the
sheep would not use his property regardless of the project's configuration
because heavy traffic on the road adjacent to his project already deterred
sheep from crossing the road to habitat on the other side of the project
site. Figure 3 is a map of the general project area that illustrates many of
the following issues.

3 Section 7( a)( 4) was added to the act to provide a mechanism for
identifying and resolving potential conflicts between a proposed action and
a proposed species or proposed critical habitat at an early planning stage.
A conference is required only when a proposed action is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a proposed species or adversely modify proposed
critical habitat. However, federal action agencies may request a conference
on any proposed action. The Service can also request a conference after a
review of available information suggests that a proposed action is likely to
jeopardize a proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.
A formal conference results in a determination, called a “conference
opinion,” that communicates the Service's position on whether a
proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
proposed species.

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 33 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Figure 3: Map of Initial Project Boundary and Service Suggested Project
Area, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Movement Corridor From Occupied to Unoccupied
Habitat, and the Project's Proximity to Tramway Road

Source: GAO's representation of map provided by the Service.

The developer maintained that the project plan that he submitted to the
Service adequately addressed any adverse impacts on Peninsular bighorn sheep
even though he did not believe that the species resided on his property. He
also maintained that expert biologists supported his position that the golf
course would not pose a significant danger to the long- term survivability
of the sheep. He believed that his project plan addressed all the
requirements outlined in a court supervised settlement agreement that
resulted from a lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fish and Game
regarding the project's impacts on the sheep. Consequently, he did not
believe that any more project modifications were necessary. Finally,
Jeopardy Determination

Service suggested project area (200 acres)

Original project boundary Occupied sheep habitat Unoccupied

sheep habitat Scale 1: 36000

Palm Springs

Tramway Road

Highway 111

San Jacinto mountains Chino Canyon area

Corridor

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 34 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

he claimed that he had been in negotiations with the Service for 8 years
without resolution of these issues.

According to Carlsbad officials, the jeopardy determination was reviewed and
supported by the Portland regional office, which signed the conference
opinion. In 1997, eight herds of female Peninsular bighorn sheep existed in
the United States, and each was considered critical by the Service for
maintaining the viability of the entire population (then about 280 sheep).
The jeopardy determination was based on the Service's conclusion that the
project would likely result in an overall reduction of about 14 percent (40
of 280) of the U. S. Peninsular bighorn sheep population. Carlsbad officials
explained that the project, as submitted, would lead to the demise of the
only remaining herd of big horn sheep in the San Jacinto Mountains (about 19
sheep). Carlsbad officials concluded that the loss of this herd would also
likely lead to the loss of a biologically viable herd located just south of
the San Jacinto Mountains herd in the neighboring northern Santa Rosa
Mountains (about 21 sheep). Carlsbad concluded that the loss of two of the
eight herds of Peninsular bighorn sheep in the United States- a 25- percent
reduction on the total number of herds- would reduce the chances for the
population's recovery and eventual delisting. According to Carlsbad
officials, this would occur because of decreases in the genetic diversity of
the population, the number of sheep available for movement between herds,
and the ability for the herds to expand their range.

The Service concluded that the development would fragment valuable sheep
habitat into at least two relatively isolated habitat areas, interfere with
sheep dispersal, and sever the connection to important unoccupied habitat
that the Service believes is needed to sustain the herd over time.
Specifically, Service officials maintained that for large mammals, such as
the Peninsular bighorn sheep, to avoid extinction at a regional scale, the
movement of individuals must be sufficient enough to allow the species to
repopulate areas where local extinction has occurred. The Service maintained
that the project would reduce the ability of the sheep to access important
mountain slopes, canyon bottoms, water sources, and forage areas, thereby
reducing the likelihood for sheep range expansion and population recovery.

Finally, because the project would establish a hotel, among other
structures, the Service anticipated that increased fire suppression
practices would occur over the life of the project and would result in the
sheep's eventual abandonment of the habitat. Carlsbad officials provided
biological evidence suggesting that increased fire suppression practices

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 35 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

associated with human development are one of several factors leading to the
abandonment of habitat by bighorn sheep and has been associated with the
loss of sheep herds in other areas, such as Arizona. Bighorn sheep show a
strong preference for habitats providing good visibility because they
provide the sheep with the greatest security from predators. Fire
suppression causes brush to accumulate over time and reduces visibility for
the sheep.

The developer stated that biological experts supported his position that the
project would not adversely affect the sheep. However, Carlsbad officials
presented us with a letter from one of the biological experts that the
developer had used to support his claim. The expert wrote that because some
of his comments had been misrepresented and projected out of context by the
developer, he was unwilling to become more involved in the project.
Furthermore, the letter stated that the project was clearly situated within
the sheep's habitat.

We spoke with two of the three experts who consulted with the developer
about the project. Both stated that although their involvement with the
project was limited, the project was situated within the sheep's habitat.
However, because the area had already been heavily affected by previous
development, they would not recommend sheep conservation in the area.
Additionally, both experts agreed that the heavily used road adjacent to the
project boundary was a major factor contributing to the poor quality of the
habitat. Finally, neither expert knew how the development project would
affect the overall population of Peninsular bighorn sheep, but they agreed
that the herd located close to the proposed development project was already
dwindling because of previous development.

The developer believed that he had fulfilled his requirements to protect the
sheep in the court- supervised settlement agreement with the California
Department of Fish and Game. Carlsbad officials stated that the Service had
no jurisdiction over the project at that time. In reviewing the settlement
agreement, we found that the Service was not a party to the agreement. The
agreement was between the developer and the California Department of Fish
and Game. When the Carlsbad office became involved in the project through
the section 7 process, it did not agree with some of the conditions of the
settlement agreement. These disagreements included concerns about the
configuration of the project site and its effects on the sheep's movement.
Finally, Carlsbad officials explained that the developer had been involved
in a larger process that included many other stakeholders, such as the City
of Palm Springs and the California Department of Fish and Game, for about 8
years. They also provided

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 36 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

documentation showing that the Carlsbad office's involvement under the
section 7 consultation process had been ongoing for about 2 of those years.
They explained and provided documentation showing that the Carlsbad office's
involvement before this time was in the form of technical assistance to
other stakeholders.

The developer believed that the reasonable and prudent alternative that the
Service offered to avoid the jeopardy determination was not technologically
or economically feasible. 4 Included in the Service's alternative were
requirements for the developer to reduce and reconfigure the acreage
associated with the project, fence the perimeter of the project, and
establish a $500,000 management endowment for establishing sheep habitat and
monitoring, and researching and enhancing the San Jacinto Mountains herd.
The developer maintained that it was not possible to develop the golf course
within the area recommended by the alternative because part of the golf
course would have been in a “no- development” zone as mandated
by the settlement agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Furthermore, the developer stated that the alternative's requirement to
construct a fence around the project was in direct violation of the
settlement agreement. He was also concerned that the Service could not
explain the basis for a $500,000 endowment fund for research and the
preservation of the sheep.

Carlsbad officials believed that the proposed outline of the project's
boundary allowed the developer to fulfill the project's basic purpose. In
analyzing the settlement agreement, we found language stating that the
developer “shall not disturb any land designated ‘No
Development'

except to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City or other
governmental entity.” Carlsbad officials agreed that a small portion
of the alternative included an area within the no- development zone
designated in the settlement agreement. They explained that if the developer
had accepted the alternative, the Service would have modified the
alternative so that the project would have fallen completely within the
development zone.

4 Where the Service finds jeopardy, the Service and the federal agency
involved in the consultation engage in a series of exchanges designed to
develop alternative actions to allow the action agency to fulfill its
intended purpose without causing jeopardy. The results of these exchanges
are called “reasonable and prudent alternatives.” Service's
Alternatives to

Avoid Jeopardy

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 37 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

The developer asserted that the fencing requirement proposed in the
Service's alternative violated the settlement agreement. Furthermore, he did
not understand the basis for requiring a $500,000 preservation and research
endowment fund for the sheep. We reviewed the settlement agreement and did
not find any requirements that specifically precluded fencing the project
area and Carlsbad officials maintain that a fence around the project site
was necessary to prevent sheep from accessing the developed property.
Regarding the endowment fund, Carlsbad officials stated that no separate
estimate was made to establish its amount. However, they stated that the
amount was commensurate with other development projects of similar size and
scope. Currently, the Service uses a computer software program to determine
amounts of endowment funds. Carlsbad officials stated that they did not
recalculate the fund's amount with the software because the developer's
project is not currently under the Service's jurisdiction.

The developer said that Carlsbad officials had required him to redesign the
project's plan several times to address the project's impacts on Peninsular
bighorn sheep. The developer told us that each time he redesigned the plan,
Carlsbad officials rejected the revisions and required additional changes.
Carlsbad officials stated that the only redesign that the office had
requested was the one included in the conference opinion as a reasonable and
prudent alternative. They believed that any other redesigns were the result
of city and state requirements. During our investigation, we asked the
developer for a list of the changes to the project plan, who requested them
and when, and an itemization of the costs associated with having the plan
revised. We were not provided with this information despite repeated
requests. Consequently, we cannot confirm how many times the project was
redesigned or who requested the changes.

The developer stated that experts maintain that the sheep would not use his
property regardless of the project's configuration because of heavy traffic
on the road adjacent to the land. The developer stated that experts believe
this road already deters the sheep from crossing the road to access
additional habitat on the other side of the project's site. Specifically,
the developer stated that a tramway tourist attraction located at the end of
the road results in traffic of about 1,000 cars per day. Carlsbad officials
agreed that vehicular traffic deters sheep from using habitat and provided
us with evidence linking traffic with sheep deaths by collision. However,
they believe that the habitat located in the vicinity of the proposed
project site is critical because it provides the only opportunity for sheep
to disperse Project Revisions

Road Impediments to Sheep Movement

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 38 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

into important unoccupied habitat. Carlsbad officials stated that the
project, as submitted, would increase vehicular traffic and provided us with
documentation indicating that increased vehicular traffic has been
associated with the sheep's decreased use of habitat. To reduce these
concerns, the Service's conference opinion suggested strategies to reduce
the effects of increased traffic along that road. Carlsbad officials also
provided evidence demonstrating that the office is currently evaluating
alternatives to reduce the impact that tramway traffic has on sheep.

On April 6, 2000, the Corps rescinded its authority over the development
project because it determined that the project would not affect waters of
the United States and that, therefore, a Clean Water Act section 404 permit
was not required. As a result, the Corps had no need to consult with the
Service on endangered species and the consultation was terminated.

In the second project, a developer plans to build a residential community on
715 acres of land located adjacent to a major highway in Riverside County,
California. This land is situated between two large, established
conservation areas- the Cleveland National Forest and the Lake Mathews
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan. The developer has a countyapproved
development plan and a state- certified environmental impact report.
However, before any construction can begin, the developer needs to obtain a
Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the Corps because of the project's
anticipated impacts on waters of the United States. During the 404
permitting process, the Corps determined that the project could affect some
federally listed species. To comply with the Endangered Species Act, the
Corps initiated consultation with the Service in 1999 to determine the
extent of the project's impact on those species at the site. While the
developer has to address impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher and
the Munz's onion, his concerns were primarily attributed to issues involving
the gnatcatcher. At the time of our review, the Corps was involved in an
informal consultation with the Service about this project.

The developer had three primary concerns with how the Service was handling
the Corps' consultation. First, the developer disagreed with the Carlsbad
office's position that he offset for impacts on six pairs of gnatcatchers
because his biologist had identified only five pair during biological
surveys of the project's site. Second, the developer believed that the
Carlsbad office's suggestion that he conserve land on- site to complete a
flight corridor for the gnatcatchers was inappropriate because these Current
Status

Second Project: Impacts of a Proposed Residential Development on the Coastal
California Gnatcatcher

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 39 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

birds were not sighted in the vicinity of the proposed corridor during the
biological surveys. Third, the developer believed that the Carlsbad office
was over extending its authority by requesting that a habitat corridor be
preserved on the project site for use by species that were not federally
listed. He said that all these actions would require a redesign of the
project, which would reduce the number of houses that could be built and
cause significant revenue losses. Figure 4 is a map of the project area that
illustrates many of these issues.

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 40 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Figure 4: Map Illustrating the Location of the Sixth Pair of Coastal
California Gnatcatchers Compared With the Other Five Pairs, the Flight
Corridor, and the Wildlife Corridor

Source: GAO's representation of map provided by the Service.

0 800 ft

Wildlife Corridor Flight Corridor

Conservation area Highway

Cleveland National

Forest Project

boundary Existing

open space not designated for development, linking to Lake Mathews core
reserve 15

Gnatcatchers identified in inital survey Sixth pair of gnatcatchers

Housing development

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 41 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

The developer explained that when his biologists initially conducted
biological surveys on the project site, only five pairs of gnatcatchers were
identified. These surveys were in compliance with the Service's protocols
and had been initially accepted by the Carlsbad office. However, during an
on- site field visit attended by Carlsbad officials, a Service biologist and
the developers biological consultant sighted a pair of gnatcatchers on the
developer's land in an area where the birds had not been previously sighted.
This area was directly adjacent to other land that was anticipated to have
gnatcatchers on it. The developer maintained that Carlsbad officials
increased the number of birds from five to six pairs on the basis of this
visual sighting rather than by a survey or other documentation, thereby
requiring the developer to offset project impacts on more birds. He
questioned the office's conclusion because gnatcatchers are known to expand
their ranges during the nonbreeding season, which is when the sighting
occurred. The developer maintained that the new pair had either already been
counted in the biological survey or were birds that did not reside on his
property. In either case, he believed that little evidence supported the
increase in the number of gnatcatcher pairs.

Carlsbad officials explained that Service guidelines required them to be
conservative in their conclusions and to err on the side of the species.
Carlsbad officials also stated that in their professional judgment, the
sixth pair of gnatcatchers was additional to the birds identified in the
biological survey. They based this conclusion on the location of the
sighting. Carlsbad officials pointed out that biological surveys often do
not capture all members of a species that use a site. The Service uses these
surveys as a benchmark for determining a project's effects and the
appropriate offsetting measures. If new members of a species are identified
during the consultation process, the Service considers this information as
the best and most current available and determines offsetting measures
accordingly. Carlsbad officials agreed that gnatcatchers expand their ranges
during the nonbreeding season, but they did not believe that any of the
original five pairs would expand their range to the area where the
additional pair was found. They said that it was more likely that the
additional birds used on- site and off- site habitat contiguous with the
location where the birds were sighted and less likely that the birds
represented one of the five pairs to the north, as these birds were isolated
by unsuitable habitat. Because the birds were observed foraging on- site,
and on the basis of the gnatcatcher's known behavior, Carlsbad officials
determined that at least a portion of the use area for these birds occurred
within the project boundary. Therefore, based on the best available
scientific information, the office included the birds in the number of pairs
Offsetting Measures for Six

Pairs of Gnatcatchers

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 42 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

the developer needed to consider in developing offsetting measures to reduce
the project's impacts on the species.

The developer believed that the Carlsbad office's request that he conserve
land on- site to complete a flight corridor for the gnatcatchers was
inappropriate because this species was not sighted in the vicinity of the
proposed corridor during the biological surveys. Carlsbad officials stated
that the size and shape of areas used by gnatcatchers are significantly
larger than any area that is defined on the basis of a presence/ absence
survey and that gnatcatchers likely used habitat contiguous with and
including the proposed flight corridor. Carlsbad officials explained that
they suggested this area for a corridor when the developer expressed
interest in conserving gnatcatchers on- site rather than providing off- site
property as an offsetting measure for the taking of the species. They told
the developer that if he wanted to conserve gnatcatchers on- site, he would
need to ensure that the property would support the birds in perpetuity.
Carlsbad officials stated that the flight corridor would allow the
gnatcatchers the opportunity to immigrate to and emigrate from the property
and provided us with documents supporting their position that gnatcatchers
use highway right- of- ways for dispersal purposes. Carlsbad officials
suggested that the developer locate the flight corridor in an area of his
property that already has gnatcatcher habitat and in an area that is
directly across the highway from additional gnatcatcher habitat. According
to Carlsbad officials, conserving this area would allow birds to sight
suitable habitat from both sides of the highway and would provide an
opportunity for gnatcatchers to move to and from the property and through
the property to Forest Service land to the south.

The developer believed that the office over extended its authority when it
requested that another habitat corridor be preserved on the project site for
species that were not federally listed. This corridor was in addition to the
gnatcather flight corridor. Carlsbad officials said that the corridor was
needed because the applicant wanted to conserve some of the gnatcatchers on
the property and to accomplish this, the developer needed to provide viable
habitat for the birds. Carlsbad officials stated that the corridor would
provide a means for large predators, such as coyotes, to access the
property. Large predators are known to prey on midsize and small predators
(such as raccoons, skunks, and domestic cats) that prey on gnatcatchers.
Carlsbad officials provided scientific evidence to support their position
that a lack of large predators can lead to high levels of smaller predators,
which prey on birds. Flight Corridor for

Gnatcatchers Habitat Corridor for Nonlisted Species

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 43 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Carlsbad officials stated the issue of a nonlisted species habitat corridor
was first discussed in 1995 with officials from Riverside County who had
asked the office to comment on a proposed project layout submitted to the
county by the developer. At that time, they stated that the developer was
working on obtaining approval of his development plan from local
jurisdictions and that Carlsbad officials expressed the importance of
maintaining wildlife corridors in the area to county officials. As part of
their assistance, Carlsbad officials and officials from the California
Department of Fish and Game conducted surveys on potential corridors that
remained in the area to connect the already established Lake Mathew's
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan with the Cleveland National Forest.
Because the corridor was one of the last connections between these two large
conservation areas, officials from both agencies maintained that it was
imperative that the corridor be conserved. Carlsbad officials did not know
if the developer was made aware of these discussions with the county or how
this issue could have been resolved if the developer had not attempted to
conserve gnatcatchers on- site.

On July 14, 2000 the Corps requested formal consultation for the project. On
December 4, 2000, the Carlsbad office completed and sent a draft biological
opinion to the Corps and the developer for review.

In the third project, a utility company needed to perform new construction
and maintenance activities in San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties,
California. To comply with the Endangered Species Act, the utility company
developed a multispecies HCP to minimize incidental takes of federally
listed species and ensure that habitat for federally listed and other
sensitive species would be preserved. 5 The utility company included
nonlisted species in its HCP as a proactive measure to avoid the need for
piecemeal additions of species to the HCP if a species were to become
listed.

In 1995, the HCP was completed, and the Service issued an incidental take
permit that covered 110 species. The permit allowed the utility company to
perform maintenance and construction activities. In 1997, the Quino

5 Multispecies habitat conservation plans are planning efforts designed to
facilitate section 10 permitting requirements on a landscape scale. Because
the utility company's service area extends across several already
established multispecies/ habitat conservation plans, its plan was unique.
Current Status

Project Three: Impacts of a Utility Company's Proposed Maintenance
Activities on the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 44 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Checkerspot butterfly was federally listed as endangered, however, under the
existing permit, incidental takes of the butterfly was not authorized
because the HCP did not include provisions to ensure the butterfly's
continued existence. If the utility company wanted authorization for
incidentally taking the butterfly during its operations, it needed to amend
the existing HCP. Without this amendment, the utility company would run the
risk of violating section 9 of the act by illegally taking the butterfly.

At the time of our review, the utility company had three primary concerns
regarding how the Carlsbad office handled its HCP and its subsequent
amendment. Specifically, utility company officials did not understand why
Carlsbad officials initially had not allowed the butterfly on the list of
species to be covered in the HCP. Utility company officials also did not
believe that the Carlsbad office abided by a legally binding agreement to
notify them in advance of listing the butterfly so that actions could have
been taken sooner to add an amendment to their HCP that would allow them to
continue maintenance efforts. Finally, the utility company believes that the
Carlsbad office could have acted more quickly in approving the amendment to
its existing HCP once it was submitted.

The utility company wanted to have the butterfly covered in its HCP as a
proactive measure because, although it was not listed at the time, it had
been identified as a candidate species. Utility company officials stated
that Carlsbad officials told them that the butterfly could not be covered
under the HCP because of insufficient data on the species to ensure that the
HCP would adequately conserve the butterfly. Carlsbad officials stated that
nothing in the administrative file specifically required the utility company
to remove the butterfly from its HCP. However, they stated that even if the
utility company had left the butterfly in its HCP, there was insufficient
scientific data available to determine the appropriate levels of incidental
takes to ensure the species' survival. Carlsbad officials said that this
determination was consistent with an analysis being conducted for the large-
scale regional conservation- planning efforts for the City of San Diego.
Specifically, they provided us with documents showing that they made the
same determination for not permitting the butterfly in the City of San
Diego's multispecies HCP.

Carlsbad officials explained that determining the effects of takes or
conservation of the butterfly is difficult because of the species' rarity
and biology. At the time that the HCPs were being analyzed, only one
population of Quino Checkerspot butterfly was known to exist in San Diego
County. Additionally, in some years, more individual butterflies may
Coverage of the Butterfly

in the Initial HCP

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 45 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

be detected while in other years only a small number of individuals may be
detected. The ability for biologists to detect butterflies in the field is
affected by local environmental conditions, especially the amount and timing
of rainfall. If rains are insufficient or if rains fall at the wrong time of
year, the butterfly's host plant may not persist long enough for the
butterfly to go through its life cycle from caterpillar to adult butterfly.
Consequently, Carlsbad officials stated that it is very difficult to
determine whether takes will be catastrophic to the population or whether
conservation measures will protect the species.

Utility company officials believe that the Carlsbad office did not abide by
its legal obligation to notify them in advance of listing the butterfly as
endangered so that actions could have been taken sooner to obtain approval
of an HCP amendment. Carlsbad officials stated that before the butterfly was
listed, the Service issued an August 1994 Federal Register notice proposing
to list the butterfly as endangered and seeking public comment. This notice
was published over a year before the HCP was completed and the permit was
issued. Carlsbad officials believe this notice was sufficient for making the
company aware of the butterfly's proposed listing and was consistent with
the agreement that the Service had with the company.

Utility company officials believe that the Carlsbad office should have acted
more quickly in approving the amendment to its HCP, once it was submitted to
the Carlsbad office. They were concerned that without the amendment,
maintenance activities on and around utility poles could not be done to
prevent electrical fires that would cause safety hazards, compromise the
reliability of power to the utility company's service area, and destroy
butterfly habitat.

Carlsbad officials said that in order to address the utility company's
immediate concerns for safety and reliability, they concentrated on
developing an interim strategy that would allow the utility to continue
maintenance and that would ultimately be incorporated into the HCP
amendment. Carlsbad officials stated that the utility company did not
approach their office for an amendment to include the butterfly in its HCP
until late 1997- 10 months after the butterfly was listed. In early 1998,
the Carlsbad office responded to the company's amendment request and
explained which documents were needed to complete the amendment process.
During 1999, the utility company officials worked with the Carlsbad office
to develop interim measures that would allow the company to complete
maintenance in some areas and to avoid takes of the Notification of the

Butterfly's Listing Amendment Processing Delays

Appendix I: The Carlsbad Office's Position on Concerns Raised About Three
Projects

Page 46 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

butterfly. However, these interim measures did not apply beyond 1999. In
December 1999, the Carlsbad office received another amendment request from
the utility company. Carlsbad officials informed the utility company that it
would not be feasible to complete the amendment process prior to the
butterfly's 2000 flight season that began in April. They stated that the
utility company needed to provide them with more information and that there
was not enough time to provide for a public review of the HCP amendment and
process the permit.

As of December 2000, the Carlsbad office and the utility company were still
negotiating the specifics of the amendment and working to develop a complete
application that can be submitted for public review. Current Status

Appendix II: Consultation Sampling Error Page 47 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad,
California, Field Office

Since we used samples (called “probability samples”) of formal
and informal consultations to develop our estimates, each estimate has a
measurable precision, or sampling error, which can be expressed as a plus/
minus figure. A sampling error indicates how closely we can reproduce from a
sample the results that we would obtain if we were to take a complete count
of the universe using the same measurement methods. By adding the sampling
error to and subtracting it from the estimate, we can develop upper and
lower bounds for each estimate. This range is called a “confidence
interval.” Sampling errors and confidence intervals are stated at a
certain confidence level, in this case, 95 percent. For example, a
confidence interval at the 95- percent confidence level means that in 95 out
of 100 instances, the sampling procedure we used would produce a confidence
interval containing the universe value that we are estimating.

Table 3 contains the sampling error shown as a plus/ minus figure for each
of the estimates we made in this report.

Table 3: Sampling Error for Each Estimate Description Estimated

number Estimated percent

Consultations either incompletely or inaccurately tracked 769+ 73 75+ 7%
Formal consultations with unsupported dates on the logs 140+ 52 47+ 17%
Informal consultations with unsupported dates on the logs 230+ 52 70+ 16%
Informal consultations with documentation in corresponding files of dates
missing from the logs 276+ 37 87+ 12%

Note: All sampling errors are calculated at the 95- percent confidence
level.

Appendix II: Consultation Sampling Error

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Page 48 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Page 49 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Page 50 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

Page 51 GAO- 01- 203 Carlsbad, California, Field Office

Barry Hill, (202) 512- 3841 In addition to those named above, Keshia Cheeks,
Doreen Feldman, Kathy Gilhooly, Curtis Groves, Eric Johns, Roy Judy,
Victoria Lin, Sara Ann Moesbauer, Gopaul Noojibail, Allan Rogers, Derek
Stewart, Michelle Tong, Gary Wiggins, Greg Wilmoth, and Jim Yeager made key
contributions to this report. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgements GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgements

(141499)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with “info” in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

? E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***