namely the disappearance of the turtle from most of its range, the decline 

 in numbers and the genetic uniqueness of the form. They were prepared to 

 accept the listing if the status of the turtle was indeed as precarious as 

 defined and, if so, to underwrite a model program for protecting an 

 endangered population occurring in proximity to one of their plant sites. 

 This desire was, in fact, the basis for the extensive ecology studies at 

 Big Sand Mound. 



Dodd (1982) stated that there was no indication to the USFWS of 

 serious problems concerning the listing until 27 July 1979 when Monsanto 

 presented testimony at the Endangered Species Act oversight hearings for 

 the subcommittee chaired by Congressman John Breaux. He notes the 

 previous September 1978 meeting with Monsanto where the management and 

 research plains were presented mentioning that two points were made clear 

 by him at that meeting: (1) that there were more data used in the 

 proposal than sole reliance on the Brown and Moll (1978) report and (2) 

 that taxonomy was not an issue. At this point, Monsanto was not 

 necessarily opposed to the listing, depending upon the outcome of the 

 surveys and population level studies. They maintained, however, that the 

 referenced data were not apparent and genetic uniqueness should have a 

 bearing on the proposal since the uniqueness issue had been raised in the 

 status report. Monsanto believed that the existing data were not 

 adequate to make a determination of status and that additional data should 

 be gathered before a determination was made. 



At the time of the July 1979 oversight meetings, most of the survey 

 data were in hand, and had been transmitted to OES. These data showed 

 conclusively that the mud turtle was still represented over much of its 

 historical range and included the discovery of a potentially large 

 population in Missouri where it was formerly believed to be extinct. It 

 was likewise known that the population level at Big Sand Mound was much 

 larger than had been represented in the Status Report. OES had been 

 supplied this information by the progress reports submitted every two 

 weeks during the study, as the data were being compiled, yet had not in 

 any way acknowledged their existence or modified the proposal based upon 

 the new information. Monsanto was indeed critical, believing that OES was 

 continuing to operate on the basis that the mud turtle was nearly extinct, 

 when there was good evidence to the contrary. 



Dodd (1982) next cited a letter of 14 November 1979 from Monsanto to 

 the Assistant Director for Congressional Relations as evidence that 

 Monsanto had been anticipating results of the studies prior to their 

 completion. There was no premature anticipation. At that time, the 

 turtle was known to be more widespread and abundant than claimed in the 

 Status Report- only the taxonomic data were still in doubt. The 

 conclusions concerning distribution and total numbers in the status report 

 had, however- been conclusively refuted. As Monsanto made more people 

 besides OES aware of this as early in the process as possible, OES 

 received a great deal of questioning as to why these data were not being 

 considered. From Monsanto's viewpoint, there appeared to be either a 

 definite reluctance to accept the results of the distributional and 

 population findings or the results were not going to make any difference 

 in the listing process. Acknowledgement of and response to these data as 



