Instructions: This Form Has Two Parts

FY’09 Report pursuant to the

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

I. Summary Page for Department (if Applicable)

Department _U.S. Department of the Interior__________________________________________

Departmental Contact for Implementation of the Bulletin for Peer Review

Name and title: Siddhartha Sharma, Information Quality Coordinator

Email address:

Phone number: (202) 219-0963

Provide the URL for Department’s portal for compliance with the Bulletin

__http://www.doi.gov/ocio/iq __________________________________

Is 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)?_Yes__

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 __No _

A link from Department’s Information Quality home page ___Yes___

Other means, e.g., a link from a science page (please describe) __NA__________

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’09 (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) ___32______

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___0___

Number of Waivers, Deferrals, Exemptions, or Alternative Procedures used: Total # _7___

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__

Number of public comments provided on the Department’s peer review plans during FY 09, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY 09: Total # __0__

FY’09 Report pursuant to the

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

II. Agency Report

GENERAL INFORMAITON

Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin

Name and title: Ralph Morgenweck, Senior Science Advisor

Email address:

Phone number: (303)989-3311

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda: www.fws.gov/informationquality/peer_review/index.html

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--Yes

o Link from Agency Information Quality home page--Yes

o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify) __NA__________

o Other (please describe) ____NA_________

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

The agenda provides links to each FWS Region and Program peer review website. The FWS has been waiting for approval of the Department Manual Chapter on Peer Review before providing official peer review guidance to its organizational units. Permission was recently given to prepare the Bureau peer review guidance and it is now in preparation.

Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY 09. (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) _30_______

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. Proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the SW

Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the northern sea otter (Y)

2. Proposed rule to remove the Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. (N—FR will include responses to all comments including those of peer reviewers)

3. Proposed endangered status for two species of Hawaiian damselflies. (N—FR will include responses to all comments including those of peer reviewers)

4. Proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Oregon chub. (N—FR will include responses to all comments including those of peer reviewers)

5. Proposed rule to list 48 species on Kauai as endangered and designate critical habitat for 47 species. (N—FR will include responses to all comments including those of peer reviewers)

6. Proposed designation of critical abitat for Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora (large-flowered woolly meadowfoam) and Lomatium Cookii (Cook’s Lomatium). (N—FR will include responses to all comments including those of peer reviewers)

7. Marbled murrelet proposed designation of critical habitat—narrow revision. (N—FR will include responses to all comments including those of peer reviewers)

8. Proposed rule for revised critical habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. (N—ongoing)

9. Proposed rule to list the shovelnose sturgeon as threatened due to similarity of appearance. (N—ongoing)

10. Proposed rule for designation of critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear. (Y)

11. Proposed rule for designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon. (Y)

12. Proposed rule for the designation of critical habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. (Y)

13. Proposed rule for the designation of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander. (Y)

14. Proposed rule to delist the Concho water snake and remove critical habitat. (N)

15. Rio Grande silvery minnow revised recovery plan. (Y)

16. Attwaters prairie chicken revised recovery plan. (Y)

17. Twelve-month petition finding under the ESA for the coaster brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).

18. Proposed rule to revise critical habitat for California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). (Y)

19. Proposed rule to revise critical habitat for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis). (Y)

20. Propsed rule to list Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) with critical habitat. (Y)

21. Proposed rule to designate critical habitat for San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila). (Y)

22. Technical agency draft recovery plan for the St. Andrew beach mouse. (Y)

23. Proposed rule to list the medium tree finch (Camarhynchus pauper) as endangered throughout its range. (N)

24. Proposed rule to list the black-breasted puffleg as endangered throughout its range. (N)

25. Proposed rule to list three foreign bird species from Latin America and the Caribbean as endangered throughout their range. (N)

26. Twelve-month finding on a petition to list southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome), northern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi), macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), and emperor penguine (Aptenodytes forsteri) and proposed rule to list southern rockhopper penguin as threatened in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range. (N)

27. Twelve-month finding on a petition and proposed rule to list the yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes), white-flippered penguin (Eudyptula minor albosignata), fjordland crested penguin (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti), and erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) as threatened throughout their range. (N)

28. Twelve-month finding on a petition and proposed rule to list the African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) as endangered throughout its range. (N)

29. Final rule to list the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, and magenta petrel as endangered throughout their ranges. (Y)

30. Draft effects analysis of the biological opinion on the continued long-term operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP). (Y)

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

None

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 2009 (HISA) W (annual)

ii) Adaptive Harvest Management 2009 Hunting Season Report (HISA) W (annual)

iii) American Woodcock Population Status 2009 (ISI) W (annual)

iv) Mourning Dove, White-winged Dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status 2009 (HISA) W (annual)

v) Proposal for a Derived and Adaptive Harvest Strategy for Northern Pintails (HISA) W (annual)

vi) Environmental Assessment for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations 2009 (HISA) W (annual)

vii) Proposed Woodcock Harvest Strategy (ISI) W (annual)

Waiver found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/InformationQuality.htm and remains in effect on an annual basis since 2005.

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ___0___

List titles: NA

Number of HISAs ___0___

List titles: NA

Number of peer review panels that held public meetings:

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___

Number of HISAs ____0____

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY 09, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY 09 ____0_____

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from professional societies. ____2_______

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

Agency ___National Park Service__________________

Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin

Name and title: John G. Dennis, Deputy Chief Scientist

Email address:

Phone number: 202-513-7174

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda _ http://www.nps.gov/policy/peerreview.htm _

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?

X 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? _____No_________

Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY 09. (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) ____2_____

Evaluation of National Park Service Health and Recreation Pilot Projects – peer review is completed, peer review report is not yet posted

RoMANS - Rocky Mountain Atmospheric Nitrogen and Sulfur Study Report – peer review is completed, status of peer review report not available

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

None

Title of Document Type of Document W, D, E, or A

ISI or HISA (and duration)

None

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) ___0___

List titles

None

Number of HISAs ___0___

List titles

None

Number of peer review panels that held public meetings:

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____

Number of HISAs ___0_____

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY 09, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY 09 _____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 ___

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

Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin:

Name and title: Michael P. McDermott, Acting Chief, Science Information and

Education Office, Geospatial Information Office

Email address:

Phone number: 703-648-5771

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

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. Yes

o Link from Agency Information Quality home page (Yes, refer to

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

o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify) ___NA_________

o Other (please describe) _____NA________

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

Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY 09.

Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly influential scientific assessments: 0

None

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

None

Title of Document Type of Document W, D, E, or A

ISI or HISA (and duration)

None.

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

List titles: None

Number of HISAs: 0

List titles: None

Number of peer review panels that held public meetings:

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

Number of HISAs: 0

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY 09, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY 09: 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 ___