United States Department of the Interior U.S

United States Department of the Interior U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY O ffice of the Director Reston, VA 20192

In Reply Refer To: JAN 2 2 2020 Mail Stop 911 GS20000241

Mr. Jeff Ruch Pacific Director Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 248 3rd Street;# 331 Oakland, California 94607

(510) 213-7028 Office Email: [email protected]; Web: www.peer.org

Dear Mr. Ruch:

This is the U.S. Geological Survey' s (USGS) response (Appeal Response) to your letter (Appeal) dated September 17, 2019. Your letter appealed the USGS decision (Final Response) dated September 3, 2019, to PEER's January 11, 2018, request for information correction submitted under the Information Quality Act and the USGS Information Quality Guidelines. Documentation related to your original request, the USGS Final Response, and your Appeal may be viewed on the USGS web page at https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science supp01i/office-science-quality-and-integrity/information-quality-6.

A new five-member panel of representatives from the across the Bureau was convened to review and evaluate the appeal and to make recommendations on its findings. The panel members were not involved in the development of the products cited in PEER's original request for correction and Appeal or the USGS Final Response. The draft recommendations were subsequently reviewed by USGS and Department of the Interior (Department) officials. Based on my review of the panel's final recommendations, I have determined that the USGS Final Response was appropriate and will not be changed.

Your Appeal also included new requests for additional corrective actions that were not part of the original request. In response, the USGS addresses these additional items in the attachment to this letter. In response to several of these new corrective action requests (found in your Comment 2 and Comment 3), as noted in the attachment, two additional frequently asked questions (FAQs) have been included in the USGS Scientific Collections Management website's FAQ section to provide additional clarification. 2

The USGS remains committed to providing unbiased, objective scientific information. The USGS ensures a high degree of transparency regarding its data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of its findings and results.

This correspondence completes the process for your Appeal.

Sincerely,

trDirector Attachment

Attachment: USGS Response to IQA Request for Information Correction Appeal (https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science-support/office-science-quality-and- integrity/information-quality-6)

The following provide the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) responses that correspond to the numbered sections in the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Appeal letter. Note that this USGS Appeal Response addresses multiple new corrective actions requested by PEER in the Appeal letter that were not included in the original PEER request for correction letter.

PEER Comment 1: USGS Is Still Not in Alignment with DOI Policy. As a policy that was developed to “adjust its scientific collection policies to be consistent with the Departmental Manual,” the new USGS policy could not have strayed further or been less consistent with Departmental policy.

DOI Museum Property Directive 1 defines both museum collections and working collections. By contrast, the USGS inappropriately categorizes the majority of its collections as working collections and does not address what it would consider as museum property. For example, the USGS considers all fossil and biological collections as working collections, a term that denotes that the collections are expendable and not intended for long-term preservation. As such, the bureau has no obligation to preserve or manage them.

There is a fine line between DOI museum property that is accessioned, cataloged, preserved, and made available for public use, including research, and those USGS scientific working collections that are to be kept and cataloged to facilitate use by researchers. USGS does not clearly acknowledge that the goal of curating museum property is to ensure its long-term preservation for active use by others over time.

Therefore, USGS is not aligning its policy with that of the DOI Departmental Manual: “The Department acquires and manages museum property to....promote research, preservation, public education, and science-based decision making about resource management; and serves as a steward of these cultural and natural resources for present and future generations.”

The USGS “Scientific Working Collections Management” policy also fails to align itself with DOI requirements for managing scientific collections (DOI museum property). Whereas other bureaus use Departmental policy as a starting point for developing their policy, DOI policy is a merely footnote for the USGS.

By focusing on working collections and continuing to use language inconsistent with the Departmental Manual naming conventions for its collections, the USGS policy continues to represent an intentional departure from the Departmental Manual. Notably, the sole recommendation made by the OIG was for USGS to develop and align its scientific collections policy with the requirements of the Departmental Manual. By developing a policy for scientific working collections, the USGS is either intentionally misrepresenting the terminology or experiencing a lapse in comprehension.

USGS Response: In addition to the Departmental Manual (DM) passage mentioned in the PEER Appeal, this policy, 411 DM 1 – Policy and Management Responsibilities for Museum Property, also states, under section 1.5. Definitions, page 6, “BB. Working

collections. Organic or inorganic specimens and items maintained by bureau/office programs that are not intended for long-term preservation and care as museum property due to their expendable nature. Working collections are intended for use during education or ongoing research and may be consumed or discarded during the analysis process according to bureau policy. Some specimens and items may subsequently be designated museum property. Working collections will be discarded when it is determined there is no longer a need for the collection for future research or education or upon completion of the ongoing research according to standards set in bureau/office policy.”

The associated 411 DM, Volume I, “Museum Property Handbook,” Chapter 3, section C.1.b, page 3:28, “Non-Museum Property – Working Collections” states “A bureau may decide that working scientific collections will not be managed as museum property. Working collections are organic or inorganic specimens or objects maintained by programs within bureaus for the purpose of education, identification, or ongoing research. They are not intended for permanent long term preservation. Each bureau needs to provide a bureauwide policy and procedures for the management of this material.”

The USGS Instructional Memorandum (IM) policy, “IM CSS 2019-01 – USGS Scientific Working Collections Management,” section 1, states the following: “This policy establishes requirements for the documentation and management of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientific working collections. USGS scientists may assemble and maintain physical samples or specimens in the conduct of scientific research, and these working collections, while not intended for long-term preservation, are federally funded assets with a potential value to science and society. Imagery and document collections are not included in this policy. When a working collection is no longer needed for ongoing investigations, the USGS will evaluate the collection to determine its value to the mission of the USGS, the broader scientific community, or the educational community. Disposition of working collections must be approved by the appropriate authority as described in this policy. Should a working collection become USGS museum property, it shall be managed as described in the Department of the Interior (DOI) Manual and Directives (411 DM and Directives).” Further, section 5 of the IM states: “E. When work on a collection is completed or an evaluation of a collection determines that it or a subset of it is no longer necessary to meet the USGS mission, the collection may be transferred or destroyed, based on condition, value, and usage. Disposition of working collections must be approved by the appropriate authority as described in this policy (see section 6). Disposition of samples from Tribal or Federal lands must be determined in consultation with the responsible Tribe and/or land management agency. Disposition may also need to be in accordance with any special permit or collection agreement requirements. In the case of transfer, ownership will be offered first to the National Museum (Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History) and, if declined, to another qualified repository (see Guide to Planning for and Managing Scientific Working Collections in the U.S. Geological Survey) to be made publicly available. Archiving of collections data and associated documents must conform with USGS data management requirements and USGS records disposition schedules.”

Based on these stated requirements, the USGS determines that its IM policy is in alignment with the DM policy since the IM makes the distinction between USGS working collections and museum collections at its discretion, as allowed. No action in response to this PEER comment is warranted.

PEER Comment 2: The New USGS Policy Still Does Not Address Vast Majority of Scientific Collections. Under the new USGS policy, the majority of USGS collections are still classified as “working collections,” defined as collections not intended for long-term preservation due to their expendable nature. This stance ignores the scientific value of biological and other specimens collected and published on by USGS scientists. By refusing to categorize them as museum property that is curated for long term preservation and use, the USGS is failing its obligation to the scientific community.

We are unaware of a single case where USGS has reclassified a working collection as museum property, including its vast holdings of fossil collections that are, to the museum community, considered scientific collections to be preserved in a museum and the equivalent of DOI museum property. We are aware, however, of a case where USGS re-categorized two natural history collections as “working scientific collections” because they had not yet been accessioned as museum property by the time the 2014 USGS Museum Management Plan was written. Thus, the basic shortcoming is that the USGS developed a policy for scientific working collections and not scientific collections which is what the OIG requested. Thus, the basic shortcoming is that the USGS developed a policy for scientific working collections and not scientific collections which is what the OIG requested.

USGS Response: In its policy, as mentioned in the USGS Response to PEER Comment 1, the USGS recognizes and defines two types of physical scientific collections: scientific working collections governed by USGS policy IM CSS 2019-01 and USGS museum property governed by the DM policy and Handbook 411 DM and Directives. All physical samples or specimens collected in the conduct of research by USGS scientists are scientific working collections and are subject to the policy stipulations in the IM. That policy lays out clear roles and responsibilities for managing these collections and specifies a collection evaluation process that may result in a collection being transitioned to USGS museum property subject to DOI policy. The USGS and DOI policies, therefore, address all scientific collections in the USGS.

Whether scientific working collections or museum property, the USGS recognizes the value to science and society of the physical samples and specimens collected and analyzed in the conduct of science. The policies clearly assign responsibilities and establish rules and procedures for the management and ultimate disposition of these collections.

The USGS has updated the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of the Scientific Collections Management website (https://www.usgs.gov/products/scientific- collections/frequently-asked-questions) to ensure that the distinction between working collections and museum collections is made clear. No additional actions beyond this change will be taken in response to this comment.

PEER Comment 3: The USGS Policy Violates Property Rights and Federal Policy. The new USGS policy fails to fully acknowledge property rights associated with collections. The policy does not respect rights of land owners from whose lands specimens were collected. Nor does the policy address the disposition of collections recovered by USGS from federal or tribal lands and later transferred or planned to be transferred to other repositories.

Although the policy states that disposition of samples from federal or tribal land must be determined in consultation with the land owner, the policy then states that any transfer of collections will first be offered to the National Museum and if declined to another qualified

repository. This is contradictory policy. In cases such as collections recovered from National Park Service land, the NPS is the owner of the property as stated in policy.

The USGS policy gives the Science Center Directors the authority to decide on disposition of scientific working collections. These collections are personal property according to federal law and regulation issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on personal property. The policy makes no provision for the personal property managers to be consulted on the disposition of these collections.

In the new USGS policy, scientists are tasked with ensuring that collections are made with appropriate permits when developing a collection plan. Most federal and state agencies and bureaus require the permittee to have an agreement in place with a repository before they will be considered eligible to get a permit to collect specimens, and to submit a collection report listing the count of taxa collected. This conflicts with USGS policy that states the disposition of specimens can change at the discretion of various entities even after the research has ended.

In short, the new USGS policy appears to ignore the legal attributes entailed in the disposition of the property at issue.

USGS Response: Although the USGS follows all appropriate rules and regulations regarding Property Rights and Federal Policy, the Appeal does point out that the USGS policy IM CSS 2019-01 does not explicitly state that disposition of samples will be made in accordance with Policy and Special Use Permit requirements. This oversight will be corrected in the FAQ section of the Scientific Collections Management website (https://www.usgs.gov/products/scientific-collections/frequently-asked-questions) and in the subsequent update of the IM or in a permanent Survey Manual (SM) policy chapter. However, the USGS currently follows all requirements of permits granted from other Federal Agencies, state governments, and individual property owners (refer to https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-usgs-policy-about-coming-private-property-conduct- research; also refer to SM policy chapter 500.11 at https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science-support/survey-manual/50011-obtaining- permission-access-private-lands).

No action beyond the clarification in the Scientific Collections Management website’s FAQ section will be taken in response to this comment.

PEER Comment 4: The New USGS Policy Lacks Internal as Well as External Review. There is no record that the USGS asked the Interior Museum Program to review the policy. Nor is there any reference that other DOI bureaus were consulted. Had they done so, the policy would most likely be comparable to policies of DOI and other bureaus.

The policy was added to the USGS Manual on July 19, 2019, but the new policy has not yet been conveyed to USGS scientists. Similarly, the USGS Collections Steering Committee was established in 2015 to advise bureau leadership on the curation, coordination, and management of collections and conducts quarterly meetings. Yet, none of the committee’s progress has been conveyed to USGS staff.

In short, the unilateral and non-transparent development of this USGS policy is antithetical to the scientific collegiality and professionalism expected from the bureau that describes itself as Interior’s premier science bureau.

USGS Response: The new policy underwent extensive internal and external review before it was issued July 19, 2019. The policy development and review was initially facilitated by the USGS Collections Steering Committee. After the draft policy was developed, additional internal review was solicited in February 2019 along with a formal external review provided by a seven-member panel comprised of experts from academia, federal agencies, national museums, and professional organizations. Comments from the internal and panel reviews were subsequently addressed in revisions to the draft policy. Documentation of this process, including the external review, was included in the closure package submitted to the OIG in July 2019, and the OIG subsequently confirmed that the USGS had met the OIG policy issuance recommendation. The current policy is written as an interim IM policy, which effectively allows additional comment and review to occur before fully implementing and reissuing as an IM or issuing the policy as a permanent USGS SM chapter.

To summarize, the appropriate review and approval requirements were followed before the July 19, 2019, issuance of the IM policy. Further, the policy received extensive review as described above. After a period of interim implementation determined by the USGS, the IM policy will be reviewed for updating. No corrective action to modify or retract the IM policy will be taken at this time.

PEER Comment 5: The New USGS Policy Is Confusing, Contradictory, and Incomplete. Perhaps the weakest section of policy is how and when scientific working collections are reevaluated to become museum property. The policy does not specify – whether this evaluation is committed to writing; what rationale is used by those making the final decision; by what procedures are USGS scientific working collections transferred to non-federal repositories; and if collections are destroyed, which is one of the methods of disposition in the USGS policy, what specific procedures does that method entail and subject to which laws.

Nor does the new policy specify any procedures to track or inventory the disposition of scientific working collections. As a result, few of these research archives are accessible to other researchers to re-examine these materials, let alone accessible to the public. If USGS scientists do in fact submit a collection report, as required by the permitting agency that issues the collection permit, the information could be used as a starting point for generating an inventory. Is this done?

Further, the USGS does not reconcile the conflict between the new policy and its 2014 Museum Management policy which provides that one of its priorities is to control growth of its natural history collections by not accessioning further additions. Thus, it remains unclear whether USGS’ new policy overrides its 2014 policy. The result is that making space and budgetary considerations rather than a collection’s scientific value appears to remain the controlling factor of whether a collection is preserved. In short, the USGS policy is not coherent and lacks guidance on key aspects that it purports to address. It is important that the policies governing scientific work, such as maintenance of collections, meet the basic requirements of cogency and completeness required by the Information Quality Act.

One of the reasons USGS has stated that it does not want to classify its scientific working collections as museum property is due to the costs of proper curation. The new policy mandates that all new projects have a collection plan, which is a commendable addition. However, the definition of a collection plan in the policy does not include the costs of managing the collections either as working collections or museum property.

The USGS Guide to Planning for and Managing Scientific Collections does mention budgeting for “collection maintenance” once. If budgeting for collections curation was included in the collections and project plans, then the USGS would not be in the financial difficulties it claims regarding collections “maintenance.”

USGS Response: The Policy and Responsibilities sections of IM CSS 2019-01 specify the required procedures and authorities for collections management in the USGS. The linked guidance, Guide to Planning for and Managing Scientific Working Collections in the U.S. Geological Survey, provides specific complementary procedures for managing both existing and new collections. These directives provide specific guidance on the policies for disposition of collections in the USGS, including complying with the right of first refusal by the National Museum of Natural History, transition to USGS museum property under DOI policy, compliance with laws and regulations governing management of the property, and adherence to any special permits associated with the collection and management of samples and specimens.

Responsibilities for collections management, governance, and oversight throughout the lifecycle of the collections are clearly designated and defined in IM CSS 2019-01. The roles are referenced consistently in the additional detailed guidance provided in the online planning and management guidance document. The responsibilities clearly indicate the highest level of commitment in the USGS at the Senior Executive level (Associate Directors and Regional Directors) to ensure compliance with the policy through the USGS Collections Steering Committee, which exercises final authority on the disposition of scientific working collections.

No action will be taken in response this comment.

PEER Comment 6: USGS Did Not Address Portions of the PEER Complaint. USGS did not address, let alone defend, its false statement that the Sundry Civil Act of 1879 “explicitly separated” the scientific investigation functions of the USGS from museum functions. Consequently, that assertion should be rescinded.

Nor did USGS explain its false statement that its policy employs terminology promulgated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections. Thus, that particular representation should also be rescinded.

USGS Response: In IM CSS 2019-01, the Sundry Civil Act of March 3, 1879, is specifically cited (section 2, part B) as one of the authorities that guide policy on scientific working collections. It states, “And all collections of rocks, minerals, soils, fossils, and objects of natural history, Archaeology, and ethnology, made by the Coast and Interior Survey, the Geological Survey, or by any other parties for the Government of the United States, when no longer needed for investigations in progress shall be deposited in the National Museum.” Department of the Interior policy states that working collections are separate from museum collections. As described in the IM, when a working collection is “no longer needed for ongoing investigations, the USGS will evaluate the collection to determine its value…” If this evaluation leads to a working collection becoming museum property, it “shall be managed as described in … 411 DM and Directives.”

USGS IM CSS 2019-01 contain terminology promulgated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections. For example, the USGS Master Catalog and Collections Management Plan

(USGS Circular 1410) and refers to work of the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections. The USGS acknowledges that subtle differences in terminology exist in documents from these groups (e.g., “working collections” are sometimes referred to as “project collections”).

No action will be taken in response to this comment.

------

References (optional section)

● PEER Request for Correction (https://www.usgs.gov/atom/76697) ● USGS Final Response to Request for Correction (https://www.usgs.gov/atom/82814) ● PEER Appeal to USGS Final Response (https://www.usgs.gov/atom/83475) ● Sundry Civil Act of 1879 (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/45th- congress/session-3/c45s3ch182.pdf) ● Departmental Manual (DM) Chapter 411 DM 1 (https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/411dm1_museum_property_policy.pdf) ● 411 DM, Volume I, “Museum Property Handbook” (https://www.doi.gov/museum/policy/DOI-Handbooks) ● USGS Instructional Memorandum (IM) policy IM CSS 2019-01 – USGS Scientific Working Collections Management (https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science-support/ survey-manual/im-css-2019-01) ● FAQ section of the Scientific Collections Management website (https://www.usgs.gov/products/scientific-collections/frequently-asked-questions)