Instructions for FY’12 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, 2011 and September 30, 2012. 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, or
o 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, or
o 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 applies OR the 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 K, part C of OMB’s Draft 2012 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 K, part C should submit a report this year. Please send your draft Peer Review Bulletin Annual Report (Due January 18, 2013) 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) or James Kim (202 395-3085) .
Template for FY’12 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 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? Yes
Is this URL:
A Department-wide Peer Review Agenda (Y/N) or No
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 __X___
Notices > Information Quality from http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm
A link from Department’s Information Quality home page ___X___
http://www.doi.gov/ocio/information_management/iq.cfm
Other means, e.g., a link from a science page (please describe) ______
Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’12 (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) ___2_____
Number of Waivers, Deferrals, Exemptions, or Alternative Procedures used: Total # __8__
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 # __3__
Number of public comments provided on the Department’s peer review plans during FY‘12, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’12: Total # __0__
Template for FY’12 Report pursuant to the
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
II. Agency Report
GENERAL INFORMATION
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin
Name and title: Richard A. Coleman, Senior Science Advisor
Email address:
Phone number: (303) 236-4443
URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/peer_review/index.html
** 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?
ü Link from Departmental or Agency home page,
“Notices” link in the footer of the FWS pages
ü Link from Agency Information Quality home page,
http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/
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
Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home page are current? Yes
Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED
Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’12. (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) ___19_____
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) Listing 23 Species as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 122 Species on Oahu. (Yes)
(2) Proposed rule to Designate Critical for Southern Selkirk Mountain Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) under the Endangered Species Act. (Yes)
(3) Proposed rule to List and Designate Critical for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum desert buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii ssp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs bladderpod) under Endangered Species Act. (Yes)
(4) Critical Habitat Determination for the Jaguar (Panthera onca). (Yes)
(5) Listing Decision for Four Central Texas Salamanders. (Yes)
(6) Listing Decision for the Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow. (Yes)
(7) Listing Decision for the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus). (Yes)
(8) Listing Decision for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). (Yes)
(9) Listing Decision for the Gierisch Mallow (Spharalcea gierischii). (Yes)
(10) Listing Decision for the acuña cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis), the Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae), and the Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii). (Yes)
(11) Proposed Listing for Grotto Sculpin and Designation of Critical Habitat. (Yes)
(12) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Decision for Diamond Darter (Crystallaria cincotta). (Yes)
(13) Proposed Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. (Yes)
(14) Joint Biological and Conference Opinion on the Proposed Removal of Four Dams on the Klamath River. (Yes)
(15) Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for Allium munzii (Munz's onion) and Atriplex coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley crownscale); Proposed Rule (Yes)
(16) Proposed Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker. (Yes)
(17) Draft Recovery Plan Revision for the Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker. (Yes)
(18) 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Downlist Three San Clemente Island Plant Species; Proposed Rule To Reclassify Two San Clemente Island Plant Species; Taxonomic Correction (Yes)
(19) Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) (Yes)
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
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)
(1) Waterfowl Population Status Report 2012 HISA W (annual)
(2) Adaptive Harvest Management 2012
Hunting Season Report HISA W (annual)
(3) American Woodcock Population Status 2012 ISI W (annual)
(4) Mourning Dove, White-winged Dove, and
Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status 2012 HISA W (annual)
(5) 2012 Update to the Federal Falconry
Regulations ISI E
(6) Proposed New Approvals Related to
Non-toxic Shot for Waterfowl Hunting HISA E
(7) 2012 Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes ISI W (annual)
(8) Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal
Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the
2012–13 Early Season; Final rule ISI E
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) ___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’12, regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’12 ____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 ___
AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey
Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin
Name and title: Carolyn L. Reid, Policy Analyst, Office of Science Quality and Integrity, Office of the Director
Email address:
Phone number: (703) 648-5911
URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda
http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/ ** 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?
ü 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).
ü Link from Agency Information Quality home page,
The USGS Information Quality homepage (http://www.usgs.gov/info_qual/).
ü Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify)
The USGS Fundamental Science Practices home page (http://www.usgs.gov/fsp/).
ü 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
Continue to Next Page
INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED
Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’12. (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) ____8*____
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.
* Refer to the following titles at http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/:
(1) Assessment of Potential Migration of Radionuclides and Trace Elements from the White Mesa Uranium Mill to the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and Surrounding Areas, Southeastern Utah
(Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)
(2) Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Prevent Arrival of New Genetic Strains of the Rust Fungus Puccinia psidii in Hawai'i (first publication) (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)
(3) Hydrological Information Products for the Off-Project Water Program of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)
(4) An Economic Approach to Assessing Import Policies Designed to Prevent the Arrival of Invasive Species: The case of Puccinia psidii in Hawai'i (second publication) (Yes, the peer review summary report has been completed and is posted on the web page.)