United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Testimony 

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

Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

E

Wed

xpected

nesday, M

 at 10:

a

00 

rch

a.m

 6, 2

., E

002 

ST 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 

Page 1 GAO-02-496T Canada Lynx Survey 
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. 

Page 2 GAO-02-496T Canada Lynx Survey 
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. 

(601027) Page 3 GAO-02-496T Canada Lynx Survey