11 



the distributional surveys and ecological work was completed in mid- 

 November 1979. This draft was distributed without covers, abstract, 

 color plates, or appendices to Monsanto and individuals who had been 

 involved in the studies for LGL and was reviewed during the remainder of 

 November and December. According to Gallaway, this draft contained no 

 taxonomic conclusions as data analysis had not been completed. The 

 completed report was expected to be available in late January. John 

 Bickham was not even supposed to begin morphometric analysis until mid- 

 December with completion expected the first week in January. 



Unexpectedly however, LGL was requested to present its findings at 

 the January 7 meeting of the Louisa Ecological Advisory Committee. 

 Inasmuch as Bickham had just completed his preliminary analyses in late 

 December, the final t-eport was rewritten to include Bickham's conclusions 

 but without any of his supporting data. This report was bound in pre- 

 printed covers dated November 1979 and distributed at the January 7 

 meeting of LEAC (Springer and Gallaway, 1979). According to Gallaway, 

 the report had still not been reviewed completely by LGL; therefore, the 

 word "final" was scratched out and replaced by "draft." Representatives 

 of an FWS regional office attended the meeting and the copy they received 

 was indeed marked "draft." Thus, no one who attended the meeting expected 

 this to be LGL's final report and thus available for public review and cir- 

 culation. Gallaway expected a final version dated January to be ready for 

 the public meetings on the proposal scheduled for January 30-31 (Springer 

 and Gallaway, 1980). Monsanto received their copy January 6, 1980. 



The FWS regional office contacted the Office of Endangered Species 

 and notified them that a draft final report on LGL's work had been received 

 at the LEAC meeting and requested whether it should be forwarded to 

 Washington. They were told that since the true final report would be 

 available at the public meeting and since there was no urgency to review 

 the data, it would be acceptable to wait for the final report. 



By mid-January, FWS began receiving letters and inquiries from U.S. 

 Congressmen requesting an explanation as to why FWS was pursuing the 

 proposal in light of the extensive work that had been funded by Monsanto 

 which purported to show that the turtle was widespread and not even a 

 valid subspecies. The FWS responded that only bi-weekly progress reports 

 had been received by the Washington Office and requested clarification 

 as to which data were being ignored. On January 11, a copy of Springer 

 and Gallaway (1979) was given to FWS by staff members of the Senate 

 Environment and Public Works Committee where it had been used as evidence 

 of FWS' refusal to withdraw the proposal in spite of overwhelming evidence 

 to the contrary. This copy, also dated November 1979, did not have the 

 word "final" scratched out, thus giving a false impression about the 

 contents and implying that FWS had had the results for over two months. 



decided 



Fearing that the credibility of FWS had been compromised, it was 

 led to send the report to nine turtle specialists for evaluation. 



