· web viewname and title: corey j. wells, bureau records / heidi hadley, nat’l science advisor...

Instructions for FY’14 Report pursuant to the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

As you prepare your report, please ensure that your agency’s Peer Review Agenda (the Agenda) includes agency plans for the foreseeable future1 and that each Agenda entry is up to date regarding both the timing of the review and whether the review has been completed. Agenda entries should be updated whenever new information becomes available; every six months is the minimum for updating the Agenda.

Once a peer review has been completed (that is, the final product has been edited to reflect the reviewers’ comments), the Agenda entry should be updated to include a link to the peer review charge, the reviewers’ names, and the peer reviewers’ comments, as well as the final version of the product. For highly influential scientific assessments, the agency’s responses also should be posted. An example of good practice is the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service2 agenda.

Please use the attached template to record peer reviews conducted pursuant to the Bulletin between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014. This form has two parts: 1) A “department-level summary,” which should aggregate information across all of the agencies/bureaus/offices in the department and 2) an “agency report” that should be completed by each agency within a department. A separate “agency report” should be completed for each agency that produces information subject to the Bulletin. Please make sure to report to us the current URLs for your peer review agenda – some agencies continue to submit URLs that no longer work. Also take this opportunity to ensure that your agency’s peer review agenda is up to date and all of the links on your agency’s peer review home page are working.

For those agencies that do not have any peer reviews to report for this fiscal year, it is necessary to complete only the General Information component of the “agency report.” Agencies that are not part of departments do not have to complete the summary page; they should type “Not Applicable” on the “Department” line.

To ensure consistency across agencies, please use the guidance below to determine which peer reviews were “conducted” during the last fiscal year, and thus should be reported.

Include peer reviews for which the peers have provided the agency with their (final) comments, regardless of whether the agency has:

o completed its response to the reviewers, oro made the peer review comments public.

Exclude peer reviews: o for which the reviewers are still considering the information,o that are planned for the future, oro that were planned for the current fiscal year, but were not conducted.

1 As stated in the November 28, 2005, memo from the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Agenda is not a six month forecast (i.e., it should not be limited to information (documents) that the agency plans to disseminate (or peer review) in the next six months). 2 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/peer_review_agenda.shtml.

1

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/peer_review_agenda.shtml

Agencies that reported last year that they do not produce information subject to the Bulletin do not need to fill out a report this year unless the disclaimer no longer applies OR the link to your disclaimer has changed. Rather, those agencies should send an email to [email protected] with the agency’s current point of contact for the Bulletin and the current URL to the disclaimer. The agencies to which this applies are listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_agency_info_quality_links/. The template for the appropriate disclaimer is shown below:

“based on the review it has conducted, the [AGENCY] believes that it does not currently produce or sponsor the distribution of influential scientific information (including highly influential scientific assessments) within the definitions promulgated by OMB. As a result, at this time the [AGENCY] has no agenda of forthcoming influential scientific disseminations to post on its website in accordance with OMB's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.”

Please send your draft Peer Review Bulletin Annual Report (due March 6, 2015) to [email protected]. Please do not post your draft report on your web-page until OMB review is complete. Should you have any questions related to the Peer Review report, please contact Margo Schwab (202 395-5647) [email protected] or James Kim (202 395-3085) [email protected].

2

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_agency_info_quality_links/


Template for FY’14 Report pursuant to the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

I. Summary Page for Department (if Applicable)

Department Department of the Interior _

Departmental Contact for Implementation of the Bulletin for Peer ReviewName and title: Christina BartlettEmail address: [email protected] number: 703-648-7197

Provide the URL for Department’s portal for compliance with the Bulletin http://www.doi.gov/ocio/information_management/iq.cfm ** ensure link is working

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on this URL are current? Y/NIs this URL:

A Department-wide Peer Review Agenda (Y/N) or A set of links to each agency (bureau or office’s) agenda (Y/N)?___

How would a member of the public locate this peer review portal if she/he did not have this URL? Check all that apply:

A link from Department’s home page ____A link from Department’s Information Quality home page ________Other means, e.g., a link from a science page (please describe) __X__Link from applicable bureau websites______________

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’14 (see instructions for what should and should not be included here).

Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly influential scientific assessments) 41

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___1_____

Number of Waivers, Deferrals, Exemptions, or Alternative Procedures used: Total # _5___

Number of peer reviews that included at least one peer reviewer appointed pursuant to any exception to the applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the Bulletin, including determinations by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary pursuant to Section III (3) (c).Total # _0___

Number of peer review panels that held in conjunction with public meetings: Total # _0___

3

Number of public comments provided on the Department’s peer review plans during FY‘14, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’14: Total # _0___

4


II. Agency Report

GENERAL INFORMATION

Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin

Name and title: Melanie Steinkamp, Special AssistantEmail address: [email protected] number: 202-208-4923

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda _http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/peer_review/#statelist** ensure link is working

What pathway(s) can a member of the public use to find the Agency’s peer review agenda if she/he did not have this URL?

o Link from Departmental or Agency home page,o Link from Agency Information Quality home page, o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify) _Science

Applications Page___________o Other (please describe) _____________

Does the agenda provide links to peer review reports for all completed peer reviews? ________Yes______

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home page are current? Y/N Yes

Continue to Next Page

5


INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’14. (see instructions for what should and should not be included here).

Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ___33______

List the title of each ISI. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has been completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed NOTE: It is acceptable to provide a screen shot of your peer review agenda as an attachment.

1. Peer review plan for the Risk Assessment and Mapping Program (RAMP) (N)2. Proposed rule to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and maintaining protection of the Mexican wolf by listing it as endangered. (Y) 3. Peer review (without attribution) of the scientific findings in the USFWS review of lead exposure and effects to scavenging Birds (N)4. Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species for Landscape Scale Conservation (Y)5. Proposed rule to remove the Oregon Chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (N)6. Proposed rule to reclassify the Columbian White-tailed Deer from Endangered to Threatened and a proposed 4 (d) Rule (N)7. Proposed rule to reclassify the Borax Lake Chub from Endangered to Threatened (N)8. Proposed rule to list the Oregon Spotted Frog as Threatened. (Y)9. Proposed rule to designate Critical Habitat for Oregon Spotted Frog (Y)

10. Listing decision: Tuscon Shovel-nosed Snake Peer Review (N)11. Listing decision: Warton Cave Meshweaver Peer Review Plan (N)12. Listing decision: Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Peer Review Plan (N)13. Mexican Wolf 10(j) Peer Review Plan (revision to nonessential experimental population) (N)14. Listing decisions for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner (Y)15. Listing Decision for the NM meadow jumping mouse (Y)16. Listing Decision for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Y)17. Listing decision for Georgia Rockcress (Arabis georgiana) (Y)18. Proposed designation of Critical Habitat for Georgia Rockcress (Arabis georgiana) (Y)19. Proposed listing of three Caribbean Plants (endangered species status for agave eggersiana (no common name) and Gonocalyx concolor (no

6

common name), and threatened species status for Varronia rupicola (no common name) (Y) 20. Proposed Rule to designate Critical Habitat for three Caribbean Plants Plants (endangered species status for Agave eggersiana (no common name) and Gonocalyx concolor (no common name), and threatened species status for Varronia rupicola (no common name) (Y)21. Peer review of the revised designation of Critical Habitat for the contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary. (Y)22. 12-month finding and proposed rule to downlist the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus) to threatened (Y)23. Proposed Rule to list West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher as Threatened (N)24. Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis) (Y)25. Proposed rule to designate the Bi-State population of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened (Y)26. Proposed rule to remove the Modoc Sucker from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and a Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Modoc Sucker (Y)27. 12-Month Finding on a Petition and Proposed Rule to Remove the Inyo California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis eremophilus = Melozone crissalis eremophilus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened (Y)28. Petition finding and proposed rule to remove the threatened Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Y)29. 12-Month Finding and Proposed Delisting of the Island Night Lizard (Xantusia riversiana) (Y)30. Proposals to list the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and the Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog as endangered and to list the Yosemite Toad as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Act) (Y)31. 12-month finding on a petition to list Potentilla basaltica (Soldier Meadow cinquefoil) and Ivesia webberi (Webber’s ivesia) under the Endangered Species Act (Y)32. Proposed Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Y)33. Peer Review Plan for the Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Wood Bison in Alaska (Y)

7

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___0_____List the title of each HISA. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has been Completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed

Provide the titles of ISIs and HISIs for which Waivers (W), Deferrals (D), or Exemptions (E) were invoked or Alternative Procedures used (A). If deferral is marked, please indicate the duration of the deferral.

Title of Document Type of Document W, D, E, or A ISI or HISA (and duration)

i) Waterfowl Population Status Report 2014 (HISA) W (annual)ii) Adaptive Harvest Management 2014 Hunting Season Report (HISA) W (annual)iii) American Woodcock Population Status 2014 (ISI) W (annual)iv) Mourning Dove, White-winged Dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status 2014

(HISA) W (annual)vi) 2014 Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes (ISI) W (annual)

Number of peer reviews that included at least one peer reviewer appointed pursuant to any exception to the applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the Bulletin, including determinations by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary pursuant to Section III (3) (c)?

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ______

List titles

Number of HISAs ___0___

List titles

Number of peer review panels that held public meetings:

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)_______Number of HISAs ___0_____

Number of peer review panels that allowed public comment:

8

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)_______Number of HISAs ___0_____

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY’14, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’14 ____0_____

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from professional societies. ______0_____

If such nominations were solicited, were any recommendations provided? Yes ___ No ___

9


II. Agency Report

GENERAL INFORMATION

Agency ___Bureau of Land Managment____________________


Name and title: Corey J. Wells, Bureau Records / Heidi Hadley, Nat’l Science AdvisorEmail address: [email protected] number: 202 912 7561

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda _____(not yet operational)1________________** ensure link is working


o Link from Departmental or Agency home page,o Link from Agency Information Quality home page, o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify)

____________o Other (please describe) _____________

Does the agenda provide links to peer review reports for all completed peer reviews? ______________

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home page are current? Y/N


10



Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ____(see attached)1_____


Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) (see attached)1____List the title of each HISA. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has been Completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed




Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ______

List titles

11

Number of HISAs ______

List titles


Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)_______Number of HISAs ________

Number of peer review panels that allowed public comment:Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)_______Number of HISAs ________

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY’14, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’14 _________

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from professional societies. ___________


_______Note: 1 BLM peer reviews – During FY 2014, the BLM created a Bureau-wide policy for Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy. This strategy is the framework for all science activities in the Bureau henceforth. During FY13, selected peer reviews were reported, but the data call was not systematic or comprehensive due to the absence of any overarching process. In order to ensure that peer review practices are characterized by both scientific integrity and process integrity, we have been setting up a more robust foundation to systematically track and report influential scientific information and highly influential scientific assessments. An interim Peer Review Policy is scheduled to be completed during FY15 and will be another important step to setting up a Peer Review agenda and conducting a nation-wide call to report influential scientific information and highly influential scientific assessments. The BLM has is de-centralized organization and peer review is undertaken in various forms such as: contracting with commercial and non-commercial organizations; also some peer reviews are conducted by National Laboratories or by Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units (universities); additionally the BLM has typically requested peer review assistance from the USGS, USFS, and other Federal agencies; finally peer reviews could be conducted as part of another process, such as the NEPA process, but usually those types of peer review are conducted in-house by subject matter experts.

12


II. Agency Report

GENERAL INFORMATION

Agency ___Bureau of Reclamation_____


Name and title: David RaffEmail address: [email protected] Phone number: 202-513-0516

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda http://www.usbr.gov/main/qoi/peeragenda.html ** ensure link is working


o Link from Departmental or Agency home page, A footer on all Bureau web pages (including the Bureau home

page at http://www.usbr.gov) links to the Bureau Information Quality home page (http://www.usbr.gov/main/qoi), which has several links, including a link to the peer review agenda (http://www.usbr.gov/main/qoi/peeragenda.html).

o Link from Agency Information Quality home page, See description, above.

o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify) o Other (please describe) _____________

Does the agenda provide links to peer review reports for all completed peer reviews? YES, if applicable. In FY2014, while Reclamation has undertaken numerous internal and some external peer reviews, no peer reviews for Influential Scientific Information or Highly Influential Scientific Assessments have been posted for public review.

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home page are current? YES


13

http://www.usbr.gov/main/qoi/peeragenda.html

http://www.usbr.gov/main/qoi

http://www.usbr.gov/

http://www.usbr.gov/main/qoi/peeragenda.html




Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ___0_____


N/ANumber of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) __0_____

List the title of each HISA. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has been Completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed

N/A

Provide the titles of ISIs and HISIs for which Waivers (W), Deferrals (D), or Exemptions (E) were invoked or Alternative Procedures used (A). If deferral is marked, please indicate the duration of the deferral. N/A

Number of peer reviews that included at least one peer reviewer appointed pursuant to any exception to the applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the Bulletin, including determinations by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary pursuant to Section III (3) (c)? 0

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) __0___

Number of HISAs __0___

Number of peer review panels that held public meetings: 0 Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)__0____Number of HISAs __0_____

Number of peer review panels that allowed public comment: 0Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)__0____Number of HISAs __0_____

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY’14, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’14 ___0_____

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from professional societies. _____0_____

If such nominations were solicited, were any recommendations provided? Yes ___ No ___N/A

14


II. Agency Report

GENERAL INFORMATION

Agency ____National Park Service ________


Name and title: John G. Dennis, Deputy Chief ScientistEmail address: [email protected] number: 202-513-7174

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda _http://www.nps.gov/policy/peerreview.htm ** ensure link is working – It does work.


o Link from Departmental or Agency home page, The DOI page at http://www.doi.gov/ocio/information_management/iq.cfm provides a link to the NPS “Notices” web page, on which the user can find a link to the NPS scientific peer review page

o Link from Agency Information Quality home page, o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify)

____________o Other (please describe) On www.nps.gov, the user selects “website

policies” and through its link to the following web address: http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/website-policies.htm the user can select the “Notices” link and be sent to:_http://www.nps.gov/notices.htm___on which page the user can find the link to the peer review page__

Does the agenda provide links to peer review reports for all completed peer reviews? ____No__________

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home page are current? I have checked. The two links are broken.

15

http://www.nps.gov/

U. S. Geological Survey FY’14 Report pursuant to the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

II. Agency Report

GENERAL INFORMATION

Agency: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior


Name and title: Carolyn L. Reid, Policy Analyst,Office of Science Quality and Integrity, Office of the Director

Email address: [email protected] number: 703-648-5911

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda: http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/_____


Link from Departmental or Agency home page: The USGS home page footer at the Policies and Important Notices page, (http://www.usgs.gov/laws/policies_notices.html)

Link from Agency Information Quality home page: The USGS Information Quality homepage (http://www.usgs.gov/info_qual/),

Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify): The USGS Fundamental Science Practices home page (http://www.usgs.gov/fsp/),

Other (please describe): The Office of Science Quality and Integrity home page (http://www.usgs.gov/quality_integrity/).

Does the agenda provide links to peer review reports for all completed peer reviews? Yes

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home page are current? Yes


16

http://www.usgs.gov/quality_integrity/

http://www.usgs.gov/fsp/

http://www.usgs.gov/info_qual/

http://www.usgs.gov/laws/policies_notices.html

http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/




Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly influential scientific assessments) 7*


*Refer to http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/ for the following titles of FY 2014 ISI peer review plans and completed summary reports:

1. Acute toxicity of runoff from sealcoated pavement to Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas (No, the peer review summary report has not been completed because the timing for peer review is not over.)

2. Simulated groundwater flow paths to nitrate-contaminated wells in the Yakima River Basin, Washington (No, the peer review summary report has not been completed because the timing for peer review is not over.) Note: This peer review plan was previously listed in the FY13 annual report and but was updated in FY 2014 with a new timing for review.

3. PAH Concentrations in Lake Sediment Decline Following 2006 Ban on Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealants in Austin, Texas (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed.)

4. Using Resistance and Resilience Concepts to Reduce Impacts of Annual Grasses and Altered Fire Regimes on the Sagebrush Ecosystem and Sage-Grouse–A Strategic Multi-Scale Approach (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed.)

5. Anthrax and the geochemistry of soils in the contiguous United States (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed.)

6. Response of Yellowstone grizzly bears to changes in food resources: a synthesis (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed.)

7. Use of USGS Wave Scenarios to Assess Potential Submerged Oil Mat (SOM) Formation along the Coast of Florida and Alabama (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed.)

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) 1

17

http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/

List the title of each HISA. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has been Completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed

1. The 3D Elevation Program Initiative—A Call for Action (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed.)



None.


Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) 0

Number of HISAs 0


Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) 0 Number of HISAs 0

Number of peer review panels that allowed public comment:Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) 0

18

Number of HISAs 1 (Note: refer to peer review plan titled “The 3D Elevation Program Initiative—A Call for Action”)

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY’14, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’14. 0

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from professional societies. 0


19

· web viewname and title: corey j. wells, bureau records / heidi hadley, nat’l science advisor...

Documents