being maintained by the OES was reinforced by the content of certain OES 

 file letters concerning the project. 



In response to such allegations, we submitted our report (this time 

 complete) to a different set of turtle experts, all well known in their 

 field for their expertise and integrity. The results of these reviews 

 were quite different from the previous ones, being generally favorable or 

 at least objective. Results from these and the previous reviews were 

 responded to with an addendum (Bickham and Gallaway, 198O) to the Final 

 Report which had been presented at the public meetings. All data were 

 submitted to OES by 6 March 198O. As noted by Dodd (1982), Monsanto also 

 suggested in March 198O that all the data on hand be evaluated by an 

 independent review panel of qualified scientists prior to any decision 

 about the listing, given the criticism of the data which had occurred. 

 The comment period was closed in late March. 



OES proceeded with the listing, approving the final rule by 29 April 

 1980. However before approving the rule, the Director of USFWS, acting 

 upon Monsanto's suggestion, requested the assistance of the National 

 Academy of Sciences in evaluating all the data which were on hand 

 concerning the listing. Whereas the LGL data showed the turtle to be more 

 secure and less unique than claimed in the status report, the validity of 

 the LGL data had been challenged as described by Dodd (1982). The Academy 

 responded by recommending a number of turtle biologists and statisticians 

 that would be qualified to conduct such a review, not being able to 

 organize a panel and respond themselves, given the restrictive time frame 

 (Dodd, 1982). To Monsanto, the recommendation of a scientist as qualified 

 to serve on such a review panel by the Academy equated to an endorsement. 

 The six member panel was chaired by the Chief of USFWS's Wildlife Ecology 

 Research Division, David Trauger. It included a program participant not 

 from LGL, Dr. J.L. Christiansen, and a program critic. Dr. Iverson. in 

 addition to four scientists who had not participated in the studies or 

 their previous review. 



The panel was given five questions to respond to. and a copy of the 

 entire Panel Report is reproduced in Figure 1. As can be seen, the status 

 report was given a less favorable review than the LGL report by this 

 independent group. Whereas there remains room for differences in opinions 

 as to how the data should be interpreted, there should be no basis for 

 continued references to questions about the validity of (or even the 

 existence of) adequate supporting data on which our interpretations and 

 conclusions were based. 



On 11 June 1980. a memorandum written by Trauger but signed by 

 Richard N. Smith, Associate Director - Research, FWS, concluded (Dodd, 

 1982): 



"Based on the report of the Review Panel, insufficient 

 information is available on the Illinois Mud Turtle to justify 

 listing it as a threatened or endangered species by the U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service at this time. There is a need to 



