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 Officea

Service-widea

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 4th St., NW (corner of 4th 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