This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-596T 
entitled 'Canada Lynx Survey: Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for 
Analysis' which was released on March 6, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the 
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact 
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. 
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility 
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Committee on Resource, U.S. House of Representatives: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m., EST: 
Wednesday, March 6, 2002: 

Canada Lynx Survey: 

Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis: 

Statement of Ronald Malfi: 
Acting Managing Director, Office of Special Investigations:  

GAO-02-496T: 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We are here today to discuss the investigation you asked us to 
undertake concerning allegations that biologists with both federal and 
state agencies submitted or participated in the submission of 
unauthorized hair samples purportedly from the Gifford Pinchot and 
Wenatchee National Forests, in response to the National Interagency 
Canada Lynx Survey (National Survey). 

The report titled, Canada Lynx Survey: Unauthorized Hair Samples 
Submitted for Analysis, dated Mar. 3, 2002, (GAO-02-338R) released 
today details our investigation, and I ask that it be made a part of 
the hearing record. Accompanying me today is Assistant Director 
Patrick Sullivan. 

The National Interagency Canada Lynx Survey (Protocol) was designed to 
determine the presence of Canada lynx through deoxyribonucleic acid 
(DNA) analysis of hair samples recovered from scratch pads located in 
forests of the northern United States. Included in the survey were the 
Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests, in Washington. This 
survey covered a three-year period from 1999 through 2001, was 
sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service, with the assistance of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
The University of Montana's laboratory performed the DNA testing of 
hair samples collected under the survey. If the National Survey had 
detected Canada lynx in an area not previously recognized as a known 
lynx habitat, a follow-up survey would have been conducted in that 
area to determine whether or not a lynx population was present. 

Beginning in January 2002, we investigated the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the submission of the unauthorized samples to the 
laboratory as part of the National Survey and focused the 
investigation on whether the biologists involved had communications 
about their submissions. 

In summary, there were four instances in which unauthorized hair 
samples not obtained from the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National 
Forests, were submitted for DNA testing as part of the National Survey 
for those forests. These included one submission of bobcat hair in 
1999, and three submissions of lynx hair in September and October 
2000. The Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife employed the biologists who made those 
submissions. These biologists maintain that they submitted these 
samples to test the accuracy of the work performed by the laboratory, 
although they knew that the Protocol for the National Survey did not 
provide for such action. They also stated that they did not have the 
authority to make these submissions and that they were aware that they 
had alternatives for testing the laboratory other than submitting 
samples as part of the survey. 

The Protocol under which the survey was conducted describes the method 
for detecting lynx, obtaining lynx hair samples, and submitting the 
samples to the laboratory for analysis. The Protocol did not provide 
procedures to submit hair samples collected outside the survey to test 
the accuracy of laboratory results. Further, the director of the 
laboratory told us that there was no procedure whereby the biologists 
who submitted samples would receive preliminary results, so that they 
could subsequently notify the laboratory of their unauthorized 
submissions. 

In 2000, one of the participants, a biologist with the Forest Service, 
notified the field coordinator for the National Survey that a control 
sample had been submitted in connection with the survey for the 
Gifford Pinchot National Forest. However, he did not identify which 
sample was the control. As a result, the laboratory and the Forest 
Service decided not to analyze the hair samples submitted as part of 
the 2000 survey for the region that included the Gifford Pinchot and 
Wenatchee National Forests until the Forest Service completed an 
investigation and identified all of the unauthorized submissions. None 
of the other biologists who made unauthorized submissions disclosed 
their actions until after the Forest Service commenced its 
investigation. 

After the unauthorized samples were identified, the laboratory 
completed its analysis of the 2000 survey samples, including the three 
unauthorized samples. These three samples were determined to be Canada 
lynx, and were the only samples submitted for analysis for the Gifford 
Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests that tested positive for Canada 
lynx. 

We found that some of the individuals who participated in the 
unauthorized submissions had discussions about submitting unauthorized 
samples both prior to and after the submissions. For example, a 
biologist with the Fish & Wildlife Service had prior discussions with 
two of the three biologists who made unauthorized submissions in 2000. 
This biologist did not make any submission, but participated in the 
collection of hair collected from captive lynx, which was the source 
of the unauthorized samples submitted by both a Forest Service 
biologist with the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and another Fish 
and Wild Life Service biologist with the Wenatchee National Forest. 

Further, the employees of the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife who made the unauthorized submissions did not discuss those 
submissions in advance with persons outside their Department. They 
did, however, subsequent to the submissions, discuss their actions 
with employees of both the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife 
Service, some of whom also made unauthorized submissions. 

We also found that other employees of the Forest Service, Fish and 
Wildlife, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife knew of 
and/or participated in the unauthorized submissions, including some 
supervisors. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement. We would be happy 
to respond to any questions you or other members of the Committee may 
have at this time. 

[End of testimony]