| The Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to using sound science in its decision making and to providing the American public with information of the highest quality possible. We adhere to the goal of strengthening the Service's tradition of scientific excellence and information quality in the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitat.
On this Web site the Northeast Region publishes information regarding influential and highly influential scientific information1 and our plans to manage it. We provide links to the Service's guidelines for ensuring the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that we use and disseminate. We also link to mechanisms for allowing the public to seek correction of that information.
Peer Review of Scientific Information
In order to ensure the quality and credibility of the scientific information we disseminate to the public, the Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented a formal “peer review” process for influential and highly influential scientific documents. More information on this subject is available at the Service's Information Quality Web site (http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/). In addition, the Office of Management and Budget has published government-wide guidance (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf) to enhance the practice of peer review of government science documents.
Peer Review Agenda
We have identified the following Northeast Region documents as meeting the OMB criteria for peer review of influential or highly influential scientific information. Click on a title to get more information about that document and the peer review process we have planned for it. This list will be updated as necessary.
| Posting Date
|
Draft Document Title
|
|
|
No draft documents presently meet the criteria for listing.
|
|
|
|
Last updated: 05/01/2008
1 Scientific Assessment
"A scientific assessment is an evaluation of a body of scientific or technical knowledge that typically synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models, assumptions, and/or applies best professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in the available information." (Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, December 16, 2004)
Highly Influential, Novelty, Controversial, Precedent Setting
"A scientific assessment is considered 'highly influential' if the Service or the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines that the dissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500 million, in any one year, on either the public or private sector or that the dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has significant interagency interest. 'Novelty' refers to the characteristic of being new and not resembling something formerly known or used. 'Controversial' refers to the characteristic of generating discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. 'Precedent setting' refers to the characteristic of serving as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind." ("Implementation of OMB's Peer Review Bulletin," Attachment II; memorandum from Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Dec. 15, 2005)
Influential Information
"FWS information Quality Guidelines also state that the Service will generally consider the following classes of information to be influential: information disseminated in support of the Director's decisions or actions (e.g., rules, substantive notices, policy documents, studies, guidance), and issues that are highly controversial or have cross-agency interest or affect cross-agency policies." ("Implementation of OMB's Peer Review Bulletin," Attachment II; memorandum from Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Dec. 15, 2005)
|