CIE Peer Review


Status Review of Hawaii Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca_crassidens)

Document(s) Reviewed

Oleson E. M., Boggs C. H., Forney K. A., Hanson M. B., Kobayashi D. R., Taylor B. L., Wade P. R., Ylitalo G. M.
2010. Status Review of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-22, 140 p. + appendices.
[download] (5.8 MB PDF)


September 2010


A Status Review of Hawaii insular false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) was prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by a Biological Review Team (BRT) of expert federal scientists in response to a petition to list these cetaceans under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS received a petition in October 2009 requesting that the Secretary of Commerce list Hawaii insular false killer whales as an endangered species under the ESA and designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. NMFS found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted and accordingly commenced a Status Review to determine (1) if Hawaii insular false killer whales are a distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA; and, if so (2) the risk of extinction to this DPS. The Status Review report prepared by the BRT reviews all aspects of the biology and ecology of Hawaii insular false killer whales, makes a determination on whether the population is a DPS, and provides both a quantitative assessment of and the Team's finding on extinction risk.

Before publishing the Status Review report (posted above), the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center solicited independent peer reviews of the draft Status Review document from independent experts external to NMFS, asking each reviewer to adhere to the following terms of reference:

Evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness and application of data used in the Status Review document.

  1. In general, does the Status Review include and cite the best scientific and commercial information available on the species, its biology, stock structure, habitats, threats, and risks of extinction?
  2. Are methods used valid and appropriate?
  3. Are the scientific conclusions factually supported, sound, and logical?
  4. Are the scientific conclusions factually supported, sound, and logical?
  5. Are uncertainties assessed and clearly stated?

Evaluate the findings made in the Status Review.

  1. Concerning Distinct Population Segments, is the species delineation supported by the information presented?
  2. Are the results of the Extinction Risk Analysis supported by the information presented?

After studying the draft Status Review document, each reviewer provided comments and editorial suggestions to the BRT. Reports of the independent peer reviewers are posted below. Comments and editorial suggestions of reviewers, including those provided in marked-up copies of the draft Status Review, were carefully considered by the BRT and the draft Status Review was revised accordingly. The final version of the Status Review document (posted above) takes into consideration responses of the peer reviewers as well as comments on the draft document by NMFS staff.

— Samuel G. Pooley, Director

Reviewer Comments

Dr. Randall Reeves
Hudson, Quebec, Canada
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)

Dr. Lloyd Lowry
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)

Dr. A. R. Hoelzel
Durham University
United Kingdom
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)

Dr. Daniel Goodman
University of Montana
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)

Author Response

No Response