Instructions for FY 11 Report Pursuant to The

Instructions for FY’11 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 future[1] 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 Service[2] agenda.

Please use the attached template to record peer reviews conducted pursuant to the Bulletin between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011. 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 currentURLs for your peer reviewagenda – some agencies continue to submit URLs that are no long 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:
completed its response to the reviewers, or
made the peer review comments public.
Exclude peer reviews:
for which the reviewers are still considering the information,
that are planned for the future, or
that were planned for the current fiscal year, but were not conducted.

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 appliesORthe link to your disclaimer has changed. Rather, those agencies should send an email to 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 in Appendix J, part Bof OMB’s 2011 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations.[3] 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.”

Agencies not listed in Appendix F, part C should submit a report this year. Please send your draft Peer Review Bulletin Annual Report (Due December 9, 2011) to . 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) .

Template for FY’11 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:Vany Kaiser, DOI Information Quality Coordinator

Email address:

Phone number: (202) 208-3387

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

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

Is this URL:

A Department-wide Peer Review Agenda (Y/N) _N__or

A set of links to each agency (bureau or office’s) agenda (Y/N)?_Y__

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 __X___(Notices > Information Quality from )

A link from Department’s Information Quality home page ___X_____

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

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’11 (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) ___61______

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___2_____

Number of Waivers, Deferrals, Exemptions, or Alternative Procedures used: Total # __4__

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‘11, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’11: Total # __0__

Template for FY’11 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

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?

Link from Departmental or Agency home page,

“Notices link” in the footer of the FWS home page

Link from Agency Information Quality home page,

Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify) ______
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 to are current? Y/N

The home page is current but the links to Region 5 and CNO are not currently functioning.

Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’11. (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) ___42______

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)Proposal to List the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox Mussels as Endangered (N)

(2)Proposal to List the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels as Endangered (N)

(3)Proposal to Designate a Non-Essential Experimental Population of the Endangered American Burying Beetle in Missouri (N)

(4)Proposal to List the Ozark Hellbender as Endangered (Y)

(5)Proposal to Delist the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolves (N)

(6) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot peppergrass) (Y)

(7)Marbled Murrelet – Wind Turbine Collision Model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area (Y)

(8)12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened (N)

(9)Chiricahua leopard frog: proposed reclassification as threatened and designation of critical habitat (N)

(10)Chupadera springsnail: proposed listing as endangered and designation of critical habitat (N)

(11)Mexican spotted owl: draft revised recovery plan (N)

(12)Southwestern willow flycatcher: proposed revision of critical habitat (N)

(13)Mount Graham red squirrel: draft recovery plan (N)

(14)San Bernardino and Three Forks springsnails: proposed endangered status and designation of critical habitats(Y)

(15)Nine Bexar County invertebrates: proposed designations and revisions of critical habitats (Y)

(16)Dunes sagebrush lizard: proposed endangered status (Y)

(17)Spikedace and loach minnow: proposed reclassification as endangered and designation of critical habitat (Y)

(18)Ocelot: draft recovery plan revision (Y)

(19)Proposed Rule Revising the Special Rule for the Utah Prairie Dog (Y)

(20)Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia) (Y)

(21)Proposed Rule to Reclassify the Wood Bison from Endangered to Threatened (Y)

(22)Proposed Rule to Delist the Morelet’s Crocodile (Y)

(23)12-Month Finding on Petition to List Crimson-Shining Parrot (notwarranted) and Proposal to List White Cockatoo, Yellow-Crested Cockatoo and Philippine Cockatoo (Y)

(24)Proposed rule to list the Miami blue butterfly as endangered and the cassius blue, ceraunus blue, and nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened due to similarity of appearance (Y)

(25)Proposed Endangered Status for coqui llanero (Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi) and Designation of Critical Habitat (Y)

(26)Proposed Critical Habitat for Five Southeast Fishes (Y)

Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae)

rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum)

yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei)

chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus)

laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori)

(27)Revised Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog (Rana sevosa) (Y)

(28)Proposed Listing and Proposed Critical Habitat for Eight Gulf

Coast Mussels (Y)

Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae)

round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata)

sandshell (Hamiota australis)

southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi)

Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis)

tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei)

narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia)

fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum)

(29)Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (Y)

(30)Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Y)

(31)Revised Endangered Status, Revised Critical Habitat

Designation, and Taxonomic Revision for Monardella linoides

ssp.viminea (Y)

(32)Revised Critical Habitat for the Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Y)

(33)Revised Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Y)

(34)Compilation of Information Relating to Myxozoan Disease

Effects toInform the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

(Bartholomew and Foott 2010) (Y)

(35)Compilation of Information to Inform USFWS Principals on the Potential Effects of the Proposed Klamath Basin Restoration

Agreement (Draft 11) on Fish and Fish Habitat Conditions in the

Klamath Basin, with Emphasis on Fall Chinook Salmon. (Hetrick et al. 2009) (Y)

(36)Effects of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement to Lower Klamath, Tule Lake and Upper Klamath National Wildlife

Refuges. (Mauser and Mayer, 2011) (Y)

(37)Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Chinook Salmon. Final Report from the Expert Panel.

Addendum to FinalReport, July 20, 2011. (Goodman et al. 2011)

(Y)

(38)Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on

Coho Salmon. Final Report from the Expert Panel. (Dunne et al.

2011) (Y)

(39)Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Lamprey. Final Report from the Expert Panel. (Close et al. 2011)

(Y)

(40)Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Resident Fish. Final Report from the Expert Panel. (Buchanan et

al. 2011) (Y)

(41)Synthesis of Effects to Fish Species of Two Management

Scenarios for the Secretarial Determination on Removal of the Lower Four Dams on the Klamath River. (Hamilton et al. 2011) (Y)

(42)Assessment of Long Term Water Quality Changes for the

Klamath River Basin Resulting from KHSA, KBRA, and TMDL

and NPS Reduction Programs. (Water Quality Sub Team, 2011)

(Y)

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___2_____

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

(1)Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 To 2009 (Y)

(2)USFWS Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (Y)

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 DocumentType of Document W, D, E, or A

ISI or HISA(and duration)

i) Waterfowl Population Status Report 2011 (HISA)W (annual)

ii) Adaptive Harvest Management 2011 Hunting (HISA) W (annual)

Season Report

iii) American Woodcock Population Status 2011 (ISI)W (annual)

iv) Mourning Dove, White-winged Dove, and

Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status 2011 (HISA) W (annual)

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) __0____

List titles

Not Applicable

Number of HISAs __0____

List titles

Not Applicable

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’11, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’11____0_____

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from professional societies. ____1______

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

GENERAL INFORMAITON

Agency U.S. Geological Survey

Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin

Name and title: Carolyn L. Reid, Policy Coordinator/Peer Review Agenda Coordinator

Email address:

Phone number: (703) 648-5911

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda

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?

Link from Departmental or Agency home page,

Link from USGS home page footer at the “Policies and Important Notices” page, (

Link from Agency Information Quality home page, (

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

Other (please describe)

Link from Office of Science Quality and Integrity home page (

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 to are current? Y/N

Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’11. (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) ____5_____

(1)Channel change and bed-material transport in the Umpqua River, Oregon (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)

(2)Regional Groundwater-Flow Model of the Redwall-Muav, Coconino, and Alluvial Basin Aquifer Systems of Northern and Central. (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)

(3)Numerical Simulations of Groundwater Flow in the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)

(4)Modeling Hydrodynamics, Temperature, and Water Quality in the Klamath River Upstream of Keno Dam, Oregon, 2006–2009 (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)

(5)Coupled Groundwater Flow and Management Models for the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)

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

Not Applicable

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

ISI or HISA(and duration)

Not Applicable

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

List titles

Not Applicable

Number of HISAs ___0___

List titles

Not Applicable

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)___1____

Number of HISAs ___0_____

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY’11, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’11 ____0_____