Fish and Wildlife Service: Weaknesses in the Management of the Endangered
Species Program Workload at the Carlsbad, California Field Office
(Testimony, 09/14/2000, GAO/T-RCED-00-293).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the implementation of
the Endangered Species Act by the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
field office in Carlsbad, California, focusing on: (1) how the Carlsbad
office tracks its workload of consultations and habitat conservation
plans (HCP); (2) to what extent the office is complying with FWS
guidelines for completing formal consultations and HCP processing; and
(3) the causes for delay when time frames are exceeded.

GAO noted that: (1) the Carlsbad office does not have effective systems
for tracking its workload of consultations and HCPs; (2) to track
consultations, GAO found that the office uses a manual system; (3) GAO
estimates that this tracking system was either incomplete or inaccurate
for 769, or 75 percent, of 1,026 informal and formal consultations that
occurred from fiscal year (FY) 1992 through FY 1999; (4) for HCPs, the
Carlsbad office has no tracking system of its own but relies on FWS'
nationwide HCP database for tracking such plans; (5) GAO determined that
the Carlsbad office did not always maintain its files in accordance with
federal internal control standards and the FWS' guidelines; (6) to meet
FWS guidelines, formal consultations must be completed within 135 days
of being initiated unless extensions are requested and agreed to by
affected parties; (7) about 129, or 36 percent, of 361 formal
consultations exceeded 135 days; (8) there are no statutory, regulatory,
or FWS guidelines requiring completion of informal consultations in a
specified time frame; (9) FWS has, however, established guidelines for
the completion of regional office review and approval of HCPs; (10) of
51 HCPs associated with the Carlsbad office, 15 were still ongoing or
had been withdrawn; (11) furthermore, the Carlsbad office could not
provide complete data to determine whether target timeframes were met
for six plans; (12) to gain an understanding of why consultations and
HCPs exceeded FWS guidelines, GAO analyzed 13 projects that were among
those that took the longest time to complete; (13) GAO found evidence to
suggest that the operations of the Carlsbad office could have affected
the timeliness of consultations; and (14) several factors contributing
to the delays included: (a) time associated with consultation and HCP
negotiations between the applicant and the federal agencies involved
about the actions needed to avoid, minimize, or offset a proposed
activity's impact on listed species; (b) failure of the applicants to
submit complete information to the Carlsbad office; (c) lost time
associated with staff turnover and reassignment; and (d) in some cases,
the action agency requests time extensions to get additional information
from an individual.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-00-293
     TITLE:  Fish and Wildlife Service: Weaknesses in the Management of
	     the Endangered Species Program Workload at the
	     Carlsbad, California Field Office
      DATE:  09/14/2000
   SUBJECT:  Endangered species
	     Data bases
	     Consultants
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Internal controls
IDENTIFIER:  Carlsbad (CA)
	     Endangered Species Program

******************************************************************
** 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/T-RCED-00-293

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Weaknesses in the Management of the Endangered Species Program Workload at
the Carlsbad, California Field Office Statement of Derek Stewart, Associate
Director; Energy, Resources, and Science Issues; Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony Before the Committee on Resources,

House of Representatives For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 a. m. EDT
Thursday September 14, 2000

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 293

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work on the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's field office in Carlsbad, California. Specifically, our review has
focused on the Carlsbad office's implementation of the act's provisions on
consultation and habitat conservation planning. Please note Mr. Chairman
that our work is ongoing and therefore subject to minor revision.

In 1973, the Congress enacted the act to protect plant and animal species
whose survival is at risk. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish
and Wildlife Service (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 (listed species). In
conjunction with this provision, the act also established two important
processes that provide for the protection of listed species- the
consultation process and the habitat conservation planning process.

Taken together, these two processes require landowners to take various
actions to ensure that their planned or ongoing activities will not result
in the taking of a listed species. Specifically, section 7 of the act
requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to determine whether a
proposed federal action that is federally authorized, carried out, or funded
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely
modify or destroy critical habitat. To determine this, the Service conducts
informal and formal consultations. Informal consultations precede formal
consultations and may include discussions of whether a listed species
inhabits the proposed action area and what affect the action may have on the
species. Formal consultation is conducted when a federal agency determines
its actions may affect a listed species or its critical habitat and submits
a written request to initiate formal consultation. These consultations
result in a written biological opinion by the Service of whether the
proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species or adversely affect its critical habitat. Likewise, section 10 of
the act requires that

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 2 landowners engaged in activities
likely to result in the incidental take of listed species,

but not requiring federal authorization or funding, to develop a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) to obtain a permit that will allow for the take. An
HCP specifies, among other things, what measures will be taken to minimize
or mitigate the adverse effects on listed species.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, over the last several years there have been
complaints about how the Carlsbad office has implemented the consultation
and HCP provisions of the act. Many of the complaints focused on the
Carlsbad office's not documenting and changing its position on mitigation
actions it has suggested which has caused delays in concluding a
consultation or obtaining a permit that allows “incidental
take.” Another concern is that the office has had difficulties
retaining staff, which may be attributable to the heavy workload caused by
the rapidly increasing land development and large numbers of endangered
species in southern California. Because of these concerns, you have asked us
to determine (1) how the Carlsbad office tracks its workload of
consultations and HCPs, (2) to what extent the office is complying with
Service guidelines for completing formal consultations and HCP processing,
and (3) the causes for delay when time frames are exceeded. In addition, we
obtained information on three projects to document the concerns of the
individuals who have either sought consultations or applied for permits from
the Carlsbad office and to gain the office's perspective on these concerns.
We plan to issue a report to this Committee in December 2000 that will
address these issues in more detail.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, the preliminary results of our work show the
following:

ï¿½ The Carlsbad office does not have effective systems for tracking its
workload of consultations and HCPs. To track consultations, we found that
the office uses a manual system. We estimate that this tracking system was
either incomplete or inaccurate for 769, or 75 percent, of 1,026 informal
and formal consultations that occurred from fiscal year 1992, the year the
Carlsbad office began operations, through fiscal year 1999. For HCPs, the
Carlsbad office has no tracking system of its

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 3 own but relies on the Service's
nationwide HCP database for tracking such plans.

However, we found that the HCP tracking system was also incomplete and
inaccurate. For example, the database did not identify the date the
applicant initially contacted the Carlsbad office for 16 of the 51 HCPs
submitted by the office. While the office was able to provide us with source
documents that showed this date for 31 of the remaining 35 HCPs, the date in
the database differed from the actual records by a variance ranging from
over 2 years prior to the recorded date to almost 5 years after the recorded
date. In addition, we 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 the informal and formal consultations and HCPs had not been promptly or
accurately recorded.

ï¿½ To meet the Service guidelines, formal consultations must be completed
within 135 days of being initiated unless extensions are requested and
agreed to by affected parties. We found that about 129, or 36 percent, of
361 formal consultations exceeded 135 days. This includes consultations with
extensions. We also found that there are no statutory, regulatory, or
Service guidelines requiring completion of informal consultations in a
specified time frame. The Service has, however, established guidelines for
the completion of regional office review and approval of HCPs. Of 51 HCPs
associated with the Carlsbad office, 15 were still ongoing or had been
withdrawn. Furthermore, the Carlsbad office could not provide complete data
to determine whether target timeframes were met for six plans. For the
remaining 30 plans, we found that the Portland, Oregon, regional office,
which reviews HCPs submitted by the Carlsbad office, had not processed 13,
or 43 percent, in accordance with internal processing guidelines.

ï¿½ To gain an understanding of why consultations and HCPs exceeded Service
guidelines, we analyzed 13 projects that where among those that took the
longest time to complete. Because of insufficient documentation, we could
not determine why consultations or HCP processing exceeded Service
guidelines. However, we

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 4 found evidence to suggest that
the operations of the Carlsbad office could have

affected the timeliness of consultations. Specifically, through discussions
with Carlsbad staff biologists, we identified several factors that may
contribute to delays. These factors included (1) time associated with
consultation and HCP negotiations between the applicant and the federal
agencies involved about the actions needed to avoid, minimize, or offset a
proposed activity's impact on listed species, (2) failure of the applicants
to submit complete information to the Carlsbad office, (3) lost time
associated with staff turnover and reassignment, and (4) in some cases, the
action agency requests time extensions to get additional information from an
individual.

ï¿½ We obtained information on three projects to document the concerns of
individuals who have either sought consultations or applied for permits from
the Carlsbad office. We spoke with Carlsbad officials who had responsibility
for the three cases and they provided explanations or scientific
justification for their actions. Because many of concerns raised are
complicated, scientific, and subject to legal interpretation we did not make
judgements on the legitimacy of the concerns raised or the responses
provided by the Carlsbad office.

Background

Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
adversely modify or destroy “critical habitat.” 1 Consultations
often begin informally to determine whether a proposed federal agency's
action may affect listed species or critical habitat. If federal agencies
determine that there is no adverse effect and the Service concurs, the
consultation process is concluded. If the Service does identify potential
effects but actions are incorporated into the project design that will avoid
them, the consultation is concluded.

1 Critical habitat is defined as habitat that the Service has determined is
essential to a species' survival and that may require special management or
protection.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 5 Otherwise, a formal consultation
is required. Formal consultations are subject to

statutory and regulatory time frames and procedures and result in a written
biological opinion of whether the proposed action is likely to result in
jeopardy to a listed species or adversely modify or destroy 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 agree 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 take.

The HCP process under section 10 of the act provides a mechanism to address
situations in which nonfederal applicants with projects or activities that
may result in the taking of a listed species can obtain a permit that allows
incidental taking of a listed species. To obtain an incidental take permit,
the landowner must develop a formal plan, the HCP, that specifies the
effects that the landowner's activities are likely to have on listed
species, the actions that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these
effects, the alternatives that the applicant considered and the reasons why
such alternatives were not implemented, and any other measures the Service
may require. Once a field office like Carlsbad accepts a proposed plan as
complete, it is submitted to a regional office, in this case Portland, for
its review and approval. The regional office cannot approve a plan and issue
an incidental take permit if, among other things, doing so would appreciably
reduce the species' chances of survival and recovery.

Systems for Determining Carlsbad's Workload Of Consultations and HCPs Are
Ineffective

We found that the Carlsbad office does not have effective systems for
tracking its consultation or HCP workload. Currently, Carlsbad uses manually
kept logs for tracking consultations. These logs are incomplete and contain
inaccurate data. Similar problems exist in an automated electronic database
maintained for tracking HCPs. Furthermore, the Carlsbad office has not
instituted proper internal controls to ensure that all actions and events
associated with the consultation and HCP process have been promptly and

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 6 accurately recorded and
documented and that records are readily available for

examination. As a result, the Carlsbad office cannot determine with any
certainty how many consultations or HCPs it has under way, whether actions
are completed on time or how long applicants have been involved in these
processes.

Consultation Tracking System Contains Errors The Fish and Wildlife Service
has no requirement for tracking field office workloads. The Carlsbad office,
however, has developed a manual tracking system for formal and informal
consultations to assist it in managing its workload and to provide
headquarters with data used to justify staffing and funding needs. We
reviewed the manual consultation logs for fiscal years 1992 through 1999 to
determine their completeness and accuracy. According to the logs, during
this period, the Carlsbad office entered into 646 informal and 380 formal
consultations. 2 We estimate that the logs were either incomplete or
inaccurate for 769, or 75 percent, of 1,026 informal and formal
consultations that occurred. 3 However, these logs do not capture the entire
workload of the office because, not all informal consultations are recorded.
According to Carlsbad officials, this occurs because the staff is too busy
and forgets to do so or do not consider the consultation significant enough
to warrant a log entry. On the basis of the entries that were made, we
determined that the logs were incomplete and inaccurate with respect to
identifying the dates the consultations began or were completed. Figure 1
illustrates the extent to which formal and informal consultation logs were
incomplete and inaccurate.

2 In agreement with the Committee, we did not include 52 formal
consultations that occurred internally within the Fish and Wildlife Service,
such as consultations with a Service wildlife refuge. 3 All sampling errors
for estimates are calculated at the 95- percent confidence level.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 7

Figure 1: Completeness and Accuracy of Consultation Logs, Fiscal Years 1992
through1999.

Number of consultations 0 200

400 600

800 1000

1200 Informal

Formal Total

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

318 81 230 140

98 159 399

370 257

We selected 30 of the 299 formal consultations and 30 of the 328 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. Based on the results of our sampling analysis,
we project 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 consultations.

We also selected 30 of the 318 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 that documentation of the dates missing from the logs was in the
files for 26 (87 percent) of the 30 sampled consultations.

Carlsbad officials informed us that they hired a computer specialist in May
1999. The specialist told us that from May 1999 through March 2000 he had
been working on

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 8 general information technology
issues at the Carlsbad office. The specialist told us that

since March 2000 he had been focusing his efforts on developing the
automated database, which is in the very early stages of development. Among
the key information that the database includes is a history of the
consultation, the dates when the project started and ended, and the outcome
of the consultation, such as a biological opinion. The database will be an
essential tool for determining whether the office is complying with the time
frames associated with the consultation. Carlsbad officials told us they
expect the database to be operational by October 1, 2000.

HCP Tracking System Contains Errors The Fish and Wildlife Service's field
offices rely on a nationwide database administered by headquarters staff to
track the status of HCPs. Service officials told us that they maintain this
database to justify budget requests and track the status of the program. The
database captures key information about the HCP program. This includes the
date the applicant initiated the request for an incidental take permit, the
date a complete application package- including the HCP-- was received by the
regional office, and the date that the HCP was completed and the incidental
take permit was issued by the regional office.

The Service's national database identified 51 HCPs associated with the
Carlsbad office that were under way or completed. We reviewed the database
for the 51 plans to ascertain whether it contained the key information on
the development and processing of the HCPs. We found that the Service's
database was incomplete and contained errors. These problems were so
significant that the database cannot be relied on as a management tool for
determining the progress being made with completing and obtaining approval
of the plans. Figure 2 illustrates the extent to which the HCP database was
incomplete or inaccurate in terms of initial contact dates, the dates that
the regional office received a complete application, and the date that a
plan was approved and the incidental take permit issued by the Portland
regional office.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 9

Figure 2: Completeness and Accuracy of 51 HCPs

16 27

5 12

24 31

21 13 4

Number of HCPs 0 10

20 30

40 50

60 Initial contact date

Complete package date Plan

approval date

No source documentation Data complete but inaccurate In progress Data
complete and accurate Data missing

The HCP database did not identify the dates that the applicants initially
contacted the Carlsbad office for 16 of the 51 HCPs. The Carlsbad office
provided us with source documentation for 31 of the 35 remaining plans
showing 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 four plans. Furthermore, although the office
provided source documentation for 24 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 54 days
prior to a recorded date to 427 days after. Finally, for 34 plans with
issuance dates in the database, 21 had dates that agreed with the source
documentation provided by the Carlsbad office and 13 did not, varying from
1,764 days

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 10 prior to a recorded date to 111
days after. As of August 2000, 12 plans were still in

progress, and consequently, issuance dates do not appear in the database for
them. Three plans were recorded as having been approved although they were
still under development.

Carlsbad officials informed us that Portland regional office staff entered
the data into this database based on information they receive when the
Carlsbad office submits the plan and other documentation for the regional
office's review and approval. They also said that the HCP database has only
been operational for about a year and that regional staff did not verify the
data entries with the Carlsbad office. As a result, we found that the
regional staff recorded the same month and day for when the applicant
initially contacted the Carlsbad office about the preparation of a plan for
22 of the 51 HCPs. According to Service officials, for the system to become
operational, regional staff had to enter an initial contact date. However,
the region did not have the actual date and did not attempt to verify or
correct the data entered.

Internal Control Standards and Service Documentation Guidelines Are Not
Followed

Federal internal control standards and the Fish and Wildlife Service
guidelines specify the actions that agencies should follow 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, the 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 internal
controls and 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.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 11 In addition, the Service's
operating guideline states, “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's concerns and recommendations.”

Our ongoing review to date found little evidence that transactions
associated with informal and formal consultations and HCPs had been promptly
or accurately recorded. Furthermore, the selected project files we reviewed
were incomplete. To illustrate, for nine formal consultation project files
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.

Some Formal Consultations and HCPs Exceed Processing Time Frames

We found that some formal consultations and HCPs were not processed within
the Fish and Wildlife Service time frames. Specifically, 36 percent of the
formal consultations completed by the Carlsbad office exceeded the 135 day
time frame, and 43 percent of the HCPs submitted by the Carlsbad office to
the Portland regional office for processing exceeded the time frames set by
Service guidelines.

Some Formal Consultations Exceed Time Frames Once formal consultations
begin, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 135 days in which 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

4 Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, U. S. General
Accounting Office, 1999; “Endangered Species Consultation
Handbook,” U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service, March 1998.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 12 modification of critical
habitat. The Carlsbad office's logs showed that 380 formal

consultations had been entered into and completed from fiscal years 1992
through 1999. 5 Of these, 299 had the dates recorded for when the
consultation began and was completed and 81 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 data to the
average completion times we developed from our sample, we concluded that the
differences were not statistically significant and we could use the logs to
calculate how many consultations exceeded timeframes. 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 to calculate how long
they took to complete 6 . Our calculations determined that 129 (36 percent)
of the formal consultations exceeded the time frame of 135 days.

Some HCPs Exceed Processing Times There is no overall time frame for the HCP
process. Most of the time in this process is spent by the applicant in
developing and revising the plan in response to the Fish and Wildlife
Service field office's review and comments and in obtaining additional
information required before a field office can accept the application.
However, once a field office has accepted an application package as complete
and forwarded it to the appropriate regional office for its review and
approval, the Service has established maximum target time frames for the
regional office's processing of the application. These time frames depend on
the size, complexity, and impacts of the HCP involved. For example, a high-
impact plan is typically one that is accompanied by an environmental impact
statement (EIS), whereas a medium- impact plan is accompanied by an
environmental assessment (EA) as part of the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. A low- impact plan is generally categorically
excluded from needing either an EIS or an EA. The time frame for processing
small, less complex, and

5 The office's logs identified 391 formal consultations entered into from
fiscal years 1992 through 1999, but 11 were still in progress. 6 For this
calculation, we included 10 of the 11 projects that were still in progress.
We did not include the

one project because it did not have a start date.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 13 low- effect plans is less than 3
months; plans of medium size, complexity, and impact is 3

to 5 months; and large, very complex, and high- impact plans is less than 10
months. These time frames pertain to the public review and comment period
for the HCP and any environmental impact analysis, the regional office's
review and approval, and the issuance of the incidental take permit. The
Service expects the regional offices to process the HCPs in less time than
the targets provide. However, issues such as project controversy, staff or
workload problems, or other legitimate reasons may make delays unavoidable
and the target time frames can be exceeded.

Since the HCP database contained errors, it was not useful in determining
how many plans exceeded the targeted time frames. Therefore, we attempted to
obtain from Carlsbad officials supporting information on when the office
submitted their 51 HCPs to the Portland regional office, the HCPs' level of
impact, and when the plans were approved. We found that 15 of the 51 plans
in the database were still in process or had been withdrawn. Furthermore,
the Carlsbad office could not provide complete data to determine whether
target timeframes were met for six plans. Using the data we obtained for the
remaining 30 plans, we determined that the Portland regional office met the
established processing target time frames for 17 plans, but not for the
remaining 13 plans. The amount of time by which the time frames were missed
for the 13 plans ranged from about 20 days to about 880 days. The time
frames were missed by less than 2 months for six plans, between 5 and 10
months for four plans, and by more than 19 months for three plans.

Carlsbad Office Operations May Contribute to Delays

We selected 13 projects for review- 10 consultations and 3 HCPs- to
determine why delays in the processing of consultations and HCPs occurred.
From our review of these projects' files, we could not determine why
consultations or HCP processing exceeded established guidelines. However, we
did find evidence to suggest that staff turnover at the Carlsbad office
could have affected the timeliness of completing consultations and HCPs.

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 14 The uncertainty about the causes
of delays exists for several reasons. First, the Carlsbad

office does not have a centralized document filing system. Some documents
were placed into files with no organization or were missing, making it
difficult to determine when, why, and how often events, such as suggested
avoidance or mitigation actions, occurred. Second, key events, such as
meetings between Carlsbad officials and an applicant, were not always
documented, and when documentation did exist, it was not always complete
enough to clearly explain the actions taken by the Carlsbad office.

We did find evidence to suggest that staff turnover at the Carlsbad office
could have affected how long it took to complete consultations. For 7 of the
13 projects we reviewed, nine biologists that had been involved with the
project had either resigned or transferred to another office. The Carlsbad
office has also had problems filling its staffing needs. For example, the
office has had an average authorized staffing level of 85 positions from
October 1996 through October 1999. However, it has only been able to fill an
average of 64 positions, or 75 percent of its needs. Carlsbad officials said
that several factors contribute to staff turnover and the inability to fill
positions. Most staff cannot afford to live in the Carlsbad area, they said,
and as a result have long commutes to and from work. They also said that
because of staff shortages, existing staff have a very heavy workload, which
eventually causes them to seek other employment opportunities.

Primarily through discussions with staff biologists, we identified other
factors that may have contributed to the length of time taken to complete
consultations. These factors include (1) the failure of the applicants to
submit complete information to the Carlsbad office for processing an
application, (2) the time associated with negotiations between the applicant
and the involved federal agencies over what measures are needed to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate actions affecting listed species, (3) the Carlsbad
office's initiating formal consultation before the applicant had provided
all of the information the Office needed to determine the impact on the
species and/ or critical habitat and (4) in some cases, the action agency
requests time extensions to get additional information from an individual.
It should be noted that the act allows for the time frames to be extended if
the parties affected agree to it and the agency specifies the length of time
and the

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 15 reasons for the extension. For
example, if the Carlsbad office needs more time to

analyze the data submitted by the applicant or to prepare the biological
opinion and all parties agree a formal consultation could exceed 135 days.
Therefore, some of the reasons given for exceeding the 135- day time frame
may be due to these factors.

Information on Three Projects

We spoke with several individuals who had consultations or requested
incidental take permits from the Carlsbad office and who expressed concerns
about the operations of the Carlsbad field office. We asked many of these
individuals to discuss their concerns with us, provide us with supporting
documentation, and let us obtain the perspective of Carlsbad officials on
these issues. However, only three individuals provided supporting
documentation and consented to this discussion. In each of these three
cases, the Carlsbad officials responsible for these projects provided us
with explanations, documentation, or scientific justification for their
actions.

In the first case, an individual wanted to build a golf course outside of
Palm Springs, California. His primary concerns were that the endangered
species in question (Peninsular bighorn sheep) do not use the property
associated with the project, and therefore, he did not understand why he had
to redesign his project several times to obtain the Carlsbad office approval
of the project. The individual maintained that the sheep did not reside on
the property. However, Carlsbad officials have biological evidence
supporting the fact that the sheep use the property. They said that the
property contains water and forage within the home range of the sheep and is
important for maintaining movement between two habitat areas. Carlsbad
officials said that they had suggested only one redesign of the project. The
other redesigns were done at the request of state and city agencies.

In another case, involving a housing development project in Riverside
County, California, an individual said that Carlsbad officials imposed
several mitigation actions for his project. Specifically, he was asked to
(1) allow for a connecting corridor between properties adjoining his
property for species that were not listed, (2) address impacts to

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 16 six pair of threatened coastal
California gnatcatchers, rather than the five pair the

biologists retained by the applicant found during their latest survey of the
project site (biological survey), and (3) retain more habitat on his
property for the gnatcatchers than he had originally planned. He said that
these actions would require redesign of the project, which would reduce the
number of houses built and cause significant revenue losses. Carlsbad
officials explained that the corridor was needed because of the applicant's
desire to retain some of the gnatcatchers on the property rather than
providing off- site property as a conservation measure for the taking of the
species. Since the applicant wanted to retain some of the gnatcatchers on
the site, Carlsbad officials believed the corridor was needed to allow
predators on the property to control species that harm the gnatcatchers.
Carlsbad officials provided scientific evidence to support their position.
Carlsbad officials also told us that in order to maintain gnatcatchers
onsite, the individual needed to provide viable habitat for the birds.
Concerning the sixth pair of gnatcatchers, Carlsbad officials produced
evidence of an actual sighting of a sixth pair in an area of the project
site that had not been included in the latest biological survey. According
to these officials, the territories for gnatcatchers generally do not
overlap. Therefore, the new sighting was far enough away to distinguish the
new pair of gnatcatchers from the five pair identified by the survey.

The third case involved the maintenance of electric utility poles in San
Diego County, California. A company believed that the Carlsbad office could
have acted more quickly in approving an amendment to an existing HCP. The
company needed to have the HCP amended to include the Quino checkerspot
butterfly that was listed as endangered after the original plan was
developed because the butterfly was found on the property where the
applicant performs maintenance of the utility poles. Company officials said
that they originally had the butterfly listed in its HCP, but Carlsbad
officials removed it. Also, company officials said that the Carlsbad office
did not abide by its agreement to notify them in advance of listing the
butterfly as endangered so that actions could have been taken sooner to gain
approval of the amendment to the latest HCP. Carlsbad officials explained
that they could not grant coverage of the butterfly in the HCP because, at
the time, there was not sufficient scientific information to determine
conservation levels and

GAO/ RCED- 00- 293 Carlsbad Field Office 17 appropriate levels of incidental
take of the butterfly. Also, before the butterfly was

listed, there was an August 1994 Federal Registernotice proposing to list
the butterfly as endangered and seeking public comment. This notice was over
a year before the permit was issued. Carlsbad officials believed this notice
was sufficient for making the company aware of the butterfly's proposed
listing and consistent with the agreement the Service had with the company.

---- Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you and Members of the Committee may have.

Contacts and Acknowledgments For further information, please contact Derek
Stewart at 202- 512- 3841. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony include Jim Yeager, Roy Judy, Gopaul Noojibail, Eric Johns, Garry
Wiggins, Victoria Lin, Michelle Tong, Allan Rogers, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and
Keshia Cheeks.

(141407)

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-
mail 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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: 1- 800- 424- 5454
*** End of document. ***