FINAL WORKSHOP REVIEW REPORT California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Science Panel Workshop US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE November 9, 2015 Prepared for: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Ave, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: 2 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & 0 Infrastructure, Inc. 2 0 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A K S Santa Barbara, CA 93101 t r e USFWS Order No. F15PB00221 e t Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 32106C010 N W W a s h i n g t o n , D California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Science Panel Workshop TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary of Scope and Objectives ....................................................................... 1 2.0 Description of the Process .................................................................................... 2 2.1 Panel Selection.............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Workshop Preparation ................................................................................... 3 2.3 Workshop ...................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Panel Review Questions ................................................................................ 4 2.5 Preparation of Individual Memoranda ............................................................ 4 3.0 Panelists ............................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Major Points of Discussion .................................................................................... 5 Day 1 - Morning Session ..................................................................................... 5 Day 1 - Afternoon Session ................................................................................... 6 Day 2 – Morning Session..................................................................................... 8 5.0 Individual Memoranda .......................................................................................... 8 6.0 Summary of Agreements and Disagreements ....................................................... 8 7.0 References ......................................................................................................... 10 Appendix A: Workshop Agenda Appendix B: Material Provided Appendix C: Complete Individual Memoranda Appendix D: Reviewer’s Curricula Vitae Appendix E: Comment Response Matrix Page i California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Science Panel Workshop Executive Summary The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was listed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) in 1993. A new genetic analysis of the subspecies was published in 2013 (Zink et al. 2013) that disputes its current taxonomic status. This phylogeographic study integrated new nuclear gene-sequence data with the mtDNA analysis from Zink et al. (2000) with some morphology data. Zink et al. (2013) concluded that their analysis does not support the coastal California gnatcatcher as a distinct subspecies. The Service published a 90-day finding (USFWS 2014) indicating that a petition to delist the subspecies, which was based largely on the conclusions of Zink et al. (2013), contained substantial information and a status review as initiated. A large number of public comments were received in response to the Service’s 2014 90- day finding including a paper published by McCormack and Maley (2015) that disputed the conclusions drawn by Zink et al. (2013). As part of the Service’s process to evaluate the status of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Service requested assistance from a science panel to evaluate this new information in the context of avian and coastal California gnatcatcher genetics and taxonomy. The Service prepared a Statement of Work for an independent contractor to convene a panel to provide an external, independent scientific review of the genetics data described above, as well as evaluate the taxonomic status of the coastal California gnatcatcher. The review included a 1.5 day science panel Workshop with a facilitator in Carlsbad, California. The panelists, who all have expertise in molecular genetics and birds, considered and individually responded to five Discussion Questions, provided to the contractor by the Service prior to the Workshop. These responses were provided through the preparation of an individual memorandum by each panel member. The panelists and facilitator were selected by a contractor (without input from the Service) to provide a balance of skills and expertise to accomplish the review. The panelists had no contact with the Service during their review, except for a brief question and answer session during the Workshop. As described in their individually prepared memoranda, the panel members were in agreement that the currently available genetic data is not sufficient to overturn long standing subspecific recognition based on morphology. The panelists were in agreement that additional research was required to definitively settle the status of the subspecies, but accepted that the current morphological data indicate at least two subspecies with a division at 30oN. Although all panelists suggested additional research and analyses, the panelists expressed some differences as to the appropriate use of particular genetic techniques, and their utility for providing insight into the taxonomy of California gnatcatchers. Page ii California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Science Panel Workshop 1.0 Summary of Scope and Objectives The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was listed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) in 1993. It is one of at least two subspecies of California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica) that occurs in California and Baja California. Its taxonomic status has been the subject of numerous reviews. Zink et al. (2000) examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region and three mtDNA genes and provided new information on geographic structure throughout the entire range of the California gnatcatcher. Zink et al. (2000, pp. 1394, 1402) concluded that “northern populations [of California gnatcatchers] do not appear to constitute a unique component of gnatcatcher biodiversity” and the authors stated that their results suggest that “not all currently recognized subspecies are equivalent to evolutionarily significant units.” In the Service’s 5-year status review (USFWS 2010) and in a 2011 90- day finding (76 FR 66259; October 26, 2011), the Service concluded that the information presented in Zink et al. (2000) alone did not provide sufficient information to disregard the existing taxonomic data and conclusions contained in previous scientific papers before 2000. A subsequent phylogeographic study regarding the California gnatcatcher by Zink et al. (2013) integrated new nuclear gene-sequence data with the mtDNA from Zink et al. (2000). The results of this study found that there were no subspecies groups within the California gnatcatcher. In contrast, a paper published by McCormack and Maley (2015) disputed the conclusions drawn by Zink et al. (2013). The purpose of this review was to provide a formal, independent, scientific panel review of the genetic data described above, and to evaluate the taxonomic status of the coastal California gnatcatcher. The review included a 1.5 day panel Workshop in Carlsbad, California. The agenda and discussion questions for the Workshop are provided in Appendix A. The material provided by the Service is included in Appendix B. Each scientist on the panel provided his or her individual expert review of the available data and responses to the questions presented. The memoranda are found in Appendix C. Coastal California gnatcatcher. Photo from USFWS (2010). Page 1 of 10 California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Science Panel Workshop 2.0 Description of the Process Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure and Environment, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) was contracted by the Service to provide a panel of scientists and facilitator for the Workshop to review the publications described above. Amec Foster Wheeler personnel identified potential panelists following the process described in Section 2.1 and based on a Statement of Work provided by the Service. During this process, no identifying information was provided to the Service about the potential panelists; only their areas of expertise and general qualifications were included. Upon award, potential dates for the Workshop were identified and panel selection was finalized. One panelist was replaced due to scheduling conflicts. All communication between the Service and the panelists was performed by the Amec Foster Wheeler project manager (PM), with the exception of a brief question and answer period during the Workshop (described in Section 2.3), to ensure the independence of the panelists. 2.1 Panel Selection The selection of panelists followed the guidance provided in the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin (OMB Bulletin; December 16, 2004) to ensure scientific integrity of peer reviews. Relevant expertise and an appropriate balance of that expertise was identified for this science panel based on the Statement of Work from the Service and used to identify potential panelists. Panelists with expertise in conservation, molecular genetics, taxonomy, systematics, phylogeography, and population evolution were essential for this panel, with an emphasis on experience with birds. The elements considered for producing a balanced panel included: