The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) respectfully requests your
review of the enclosed report, titled "Condition Report for Hawaiian
Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary." Sanctuary staff has
identified you as a particularly suitable expert who could provide
substantive comments that would improve the document prior to
dissemination. We request your written comments within four (4) weeks of
receiving this message. Your comments should be sent by email to
<steve.gittings@noaa.gov> or by mail to:

> Dr. Steve Gittings
>
> NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program
>
> 1305 East West Hwy., N/ORM62, Rm. 11642
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20910

In December 2004, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB
Bulletin) establishing peer review standards that would enhance the
quality and credibility of the federal government's scientific
information. Among other information, these standards apply to
Influential Scientific Information (ISI), which is information that can
reasonably be determined to have a "clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private sector decisions."

The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) is in the process of
developing reports on the status and trends of natural and
archaeological resources within the marine sanctuaries as part of its
System-Wide Monitoring (SWiM) Program. These "condition reports," which
will be produced periodically for each marine sanctuary, are
appropriately considered Influential Scientific Information. For this
reason, these reports are subject to the review requirements of both the
Information Quality Act and the OMB Bulletin guidelines.

**Charge**

The initial sanctuary condition reports provide a summary of marine
sanctuary resources, pressures (e.g. human impacts), the current state
of the sanctuary, and responses to the pressures that threaten the
integrity of the marine environment. The primary purpose of the
documents is to report in a standardized way across all marine
sanctuaries on the status and trends of water quality, habitat, living
resources and maritime archaeological resources and the human activities
that affect them. Resource status is rated on a scale from good to poor,
and the timelines used for comparison vary from topic to topic. Trends
in the status of resources are also reported, and are generally based on
observed changes in status over the past five years, unless otherwise
specified. Evaluations of status and trends were made by sanctuary
staff, based on interpretation of quantitative and, when necessary,
non-quantitative assessments and observations of scientists, managers
and users. Therefore, ratings reflect the collective level of concern
among participants based on their knowledge and perceptions of local
problems. Internal reviews were conducted by staff, by some members of
the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and by other selected informal
reviewers. Reports summarizing resource status and trends will be
prepared for each marine sanctuary once every five years. This
information is intended to help set the stage for management plan
reviews.

As you review the document, please do so recognizing that the report is
much like an executive summary that is based on site specific data that
may not be presented in detail within the report. To the extent
possible, references and links to existing data are given, and
appropriate summary graphics or data are shown, but original sources are
likely to contain much more information than the condition report.

The 17 questions listed in the report and in Appendix A of the report
are asked of all sanctuaries. The interpretation of the questions by
sanctuary staff, and their responses to the questions are standardized
according to the descriptions and explanations provided in Appendix A.
(Please see "A Monitoring Framework for the National Marine Sanctuary
System" for a complete description of SWiM at:
[http://sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/library/alldocs.html]{.underline}.) We
are not requesting your review of this portion of the report, as these
standards were established by the original panel of experts who designed
SWiM, and in subsequent design modifications. Your review should be
limited to the major sections of the report -- Site History and
Resources, Pressures on the Sanctuary, State of Sanctuary Resources, and
Responses to Pressures - based on your relevant experience and knowledge
of the resources of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary. We are particularly interested in your expert opinion of our
judgments of resource status and trends, the bases for judgment, and
whether you feel that other data could or should have been incorporated
into the ratings of status and trends. We welcome any recommendations
you may have regarding additional data or information sources that may
improve assessments of resource conditions.

**Posting of Review Comments**

Current OMB Bulletin guidelines require that reviewer comments, names,
and affiliations be posted on the agency website:

<http://www.osec.doc.gov/cio/oipr/pr_plans.htm>

Reviewer comments, however, will [not]{.underline} be attributed to
specific individuals. Nevertheless, by agreeing to be a reviewer for
this report, you must agree to allow your comments to be posted on the
web, along with those of other reviewers, and have your name and
affiliation posted, though the names will not be linked to specific
comments.

**Conflict of Interest**

For this review process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) adapted the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS)
policy for committee selection with respect to evaluating conflicts of
interest when selecting peer reviewers who are not federal government
employees. Please read the attached conflict of interest policy and
complete and return the attached Conflict of Interest form by mail or
fax (301-713-0404).

On behalf of the staff of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, I thank
you for taking the time to review this report. I am confident that your
assistance will improve the quality of the document and ensure that
management decisions can rely on the best available science and
dependable judgments of knowledgeable experts.