Don Amador, BRC *************************************************************** HI GUYS: Who knows when they are telling the truth. I pick up on a few statements in this article that I don't think is the true facts. I think they have shot their self in the foot. I hope they can't sale our Congressmen and Senators this bill of goods. Make sure you contact your Congressman or Senator and see where he or she stands. The ESA has done enough damage in Oregon, lets make sure the truth comes out. Thanks Howard *************************************************************** TESTIMONY Regarding CANADA LYNX SURVEY Before the Washington State Joint Committees Senate, Natural Resources, Parks and Shorelines with House Natural Resources January 16, 2002 Olympia, Washington Good Afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to share the facts currently available regarding the National Canada Lynx Survey. My name is Phil Mattson and my position is acting group leader for watershed, wildlife, fisheries and range management in the Portland regional office. Today, I would like to briefly describe lynx conservation management, the National Canada Lynx Survey, the investigation regarding unauthorized samples and actions the Forest Service is taking. Lynx Conservation Management In Spring of 1998 an interagency team of Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS) line officers convened to address needs to better identify conservation measures for lynx on federal lands in 16 states. The interagency effort was to review the state of knowledge on lynx, and to develop a management strategy for federal lands that was based on the best available science. The effort also included representatives of state Fish and Wildlife agencies. This closely coordinated effort has produced several important documents: the Lynx Science Report, Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, Lynx Conservation Agreement, and Lynx Biological Assessment. The lynx was listed on March 24, 2000 by the FWS as a threatened species, basically across the northern tier of contiguous states from Washington to Maine, including Utah and Colorado. A biological assessment by the FS, BLM, and the FWS identified likely adverse effects of implementing existing management direction given in FS and BLM land management plans. A Feb. 7, 2000 FS-FWS Lynx Conservation Agreement stated that if plans were amended or revised to incorporate the conservation measures in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, or the equivalent thereof, that the plans would likely not jeopardize the continued existence of lynx. Forest, Regional and interregional efforts are underway to improve lynx conservation through project design and implementation or forest plan amendments or revisions on 57 national forests. Most recommended conservation measures for lynx are non-controversial and require little change in current management. Some conservation recommendations overlap completely or to a great extent with existing management direction for other resources and do not substantially alter management of these resources. Two conservation recommendations have been somewhat controversial. One is certain restrictions on pre-commercial thinning in lynx habitat for the purposes of providing snowshoe hare habitat (key prey of the lynx). The other is a recommendation to allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and designated snow play areas in lynx habitat. 1999-2002 National Lynx Survey Overview In 1999 the interagency effort began conducting a three-year nationwide survey of habitat to better identify presence and absence of lynx or lynx populations. Each year the survey covers more than 60 grids, or areas, in several states where hair samples are collected and subsequently analyzed for DNA characteristics to identify the species that left the hair samples on "rubbing posts." A positive result (i.e., "hit") of a lynx hair sample by itself does not automatically result in changes in resource planning or management. When a hit comes from an area already known to be occupied lynx habitat, then the sample is used to help calibrate survey effectiveness (e.g.,if an area is known to be occupied, we expect to have at least some hits if the protocol is valid). Procedures are in place to verify the presence of lynx prior to use of hit information in management. If a hit comes from habitat where occupancy is unknown, tracking surveys in snow and other investigations are conducted to verify the hit. These tracking surveys and associated investigations are intended to help determine the extent and significance of lynx occurrence in the area. Therefore, a conclusion that wild, resident lynx are present is not automatically made from survey hit information, since the hit could be from feral lynx (e.g., an escapee from a lynx fur farm), pet lynx, wild transient lynx, or wild lynx from a population of resident lynx. The lynx survey (sampling and DNA analysis) was designed and is being implemented as a partnership among the Forest Service, National Forest System, Forest Service Research and the University of Montana, with assistance and participation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, tribes and states. The lynx hair sampling procedure has been published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of The Wildlife Society. A reputable lab is being used, where the DNA analysis procedures were tested, and all procedures have been peer-reviewed and published. Lynx Survey Investigation On September 29, 2000, an employee from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) notified the survey coordinator that a lynx hair sample had been submitted for analysis that had NOT been collected as part of the established, multi-agency, national lynx inventory process (i.e. the sample was "planted"). The national lynx survey coordinators notified the FS Regional Office of the contact. FS Law Enforcement and Investigation (LE&I) was asked to review the facts to determine whether a criminal investigation was appropriate. LE&I found no criminal misconduct, and the Region then hired an outside investigator to gather information regarding potential employee misconduct. The investigator found that three FS employees from the GPNF were involved in submitting an unauthorized sample. The sample was labeled as not having come from any of the authorized field areas being sampled for lynx, but instead was labeled as being from an "extra", non-grid, area. The investigation also uncovered information regarding similar unauthorized and inappropriate lynx hair samples labeled as having been collected on the Wenatchee National Forest (WNF). The FS authorized expansion of the investigation to consider those activities. The investigation revealed that two FWS and two Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife employees were involved. Two unauthorized lynx hair samples were submitted labeled as having been collected at approved lynx field sampling areas. Survey coordinators were able to maintain the integrity of the overall lynx sampling effort, i.e., the "planted samples" were not included in the survey results, or as part of the overall survey. All remaining survey hair samples are considered to be legitimate. This conclusion is based on survey oversight, review and monitoring by staff involved in data collection and the survey coordinators, lab analysis and results, and the investigation. The Forest Service recognizes that inappropriate behavior by individuals occurred, and is committed to taking actions to avoid future occurrence. ACTIONS TAKEN As a result of our investigation: The respective Forest Service land manager has made each Forest Service employee responsible for submitting unauthorized samples (except the now retired employee) aware of the seriousness of their actions. None of the individuals involved in submitting unauthorized samples has been allowed to participate in the 2001 and future portions of the 1999-2003 lynx survey effort. We in the Pacific Northwest Region held a meeting with Forest Biologists to provide additional information and reinforce the importance of the protocol and quality control procedures for the lynx survey DNA analysis. On December 20, 2001, the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, sent a letter to all Forest Service employees to inform them of the situation and to emphasize the need to maintain the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. Also on December 20, 2001, the Chief asked for the USDA Inspector General to build on the previous Forest Service investigation and to look more fully into the entire lynx survey. We understand the Department of the Interior's Inspector General and the Government Accounting Office (GAO) are also looking into this issue. In addition to the actions we have already taken, we will: -·emphasize quality control on collection, handling, verification, and laboratory analysis of lynx survey samples. -require that all individuals who participate in lynx surveys have the appropriate training on the lynx hair-patch survey protocols. -discuss and emphasize the importance of professional conduct and ethical behavior with biologists and other employees at internal meetings and as part of training modules (this has already been started in the Pacific Northwest Region and at national meetings). In conclusion, we regret this incident and the action of agency employees. Although the unauthorized samples were detected and did not compromise the validity of the lynx survey, such situations call into question our agency's integrity. We are a science-based organization, and ANY efforts to collect, analyze, display, communicate, and use species or other resource information must be conducted to professional and ethical standards and within established scientific protocols. # # # |