On December 14, 2005, the Service announced the initiation of a 5‑year review for the greenback cutthroat trout and requested submission of any new information (70 FR 74030).  In accordance with the peer review requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, in Spring 2007, we will initiate peer review of the science relevant to the draft greenback cutthroat trout 5‑year review and our use of said science.

The Service will solicit comments from independent scientific reviewers.  Solicitations will be sent to the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Division of Wildlife Resources, the State of Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the University of Wyoming, and The American Fisheries Society to nominate potential peer reviewers.  We will request that these parties consider the following criteria for any potential nomination. 

• Expertise:  The reviewer should have knowledge, experience, and skills in one or more of the following areas: greenback cutthroat trout or similar species biology; conservation biology; small and declining population dynamics and extinction risk analysis; environmental pressures within the range of the species; modeling; and/or evaluation of biological plausibility.
   

• Independence:  The reviewer should not be employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Academic and consulting scientists should have sufficient independence from the Service if the government supports their work.
   
• Objectivity:  The reviewer should be recognized by his or her peers as being objective, open-minded, and thoughtful.  In addition, the reviewer should be comfortable sharing his or her knowledge and perspectives and openly identifying his or her knowledge gaps.
   
• Advocacy:  The reviewer should not be known or recognized for an affiliation with an advocacy position regarding the protection of this species under the Endangered Species Act.
   
• Conflict of Interest:  The reviewer should not have any financial or other interest that could impair his or her objectivity or create an unfair competitive advantage.  If an otherwise qualified reviewer has an unavoidable conflict of interest, the Service may publicly disclose the conflict.

Nominations will be requested by March 15, 2007.  While expertise is the primary consideration, the Service will select peer reviewers (considering, but not limited to, these nominations) that add to a diversity of scientific perspectives relevant to the species.  Under certain circumstances some conflict may be unavoidable in order to obtain the necessary expertise.  If such a situation arises, we will disclose these real or perceived conflicts in the administrative record for the decision and the agency shall inform potential reviewers of this likely disclosure at the time they are recruited.  We anticipate sending the document to the peer reviewers no later than April1, 2007.  Responses will be requested by within 30 days.  We will solicit reviews from at least five qualified experts. 

The Service will provide each peer reviewer with: information explaining his or her role and instructions for fulfilling that role; the draft documents to be reviewed; public comments received in response to our Federal Register notice initiating the 5‑year review (70 FR 74030); a full list of citations noting whether the source has been peer reviewed; and all citations (or for some longer documents, the relevant pages of the document) in electronic format on a CD.  The purpose of seeking independent peer review is to ensure use of the best scientific and commercial information available and to ensure and to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information upon which the Service’s decision is based, as well as to ensure that reviews by recognized experts are incorporated into the final document.  Peer reviewers will be asked not to provide advice on policy.  Instead, the charge to the reviewers will be to review the science relevant to our decision and our use of said science, focusing their review on identifying and characterizing scientific uncertainties.  Additionally, peer reviewers will be asked to consider the following questions and to provide any other relevant comments, criticisms, or thoughts: 

1.   Is our description and analysis of the biology, habitat, population trends, historic and current distribution of the species accurate? 

2.   Does our document provide accurate and adequate review and analysis of the factors affecting the species (habitat loss and modification, over‑utilization, disease, predation, regulatory mechanisms, and other factors)? 

3.   Are our assumptions and definitions of suitable habitat logical and adequate?