Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Process White Paper
iterations include a reevaluation of the criteria and methodology. It was recommended that conservation plans, prioritization methodologies, and species groups that were not consid- ered for the frst edition be evaluated for inclusion in the WAP during future updates and revisions (NCWAP 2005) .
Review and Revision of the 2005 Prioritization Process In mid-2012, an Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Teaming With Wildlife (TWW) work group developed voluntary best-practice guidance for use by states during revision of their WAPs (AFWA TWW 2012) . Te AFWA-TWW guidance includes a recommenda- tion to use clearly defned procedures for assessing conservation status and setting con- servation priorities (AFWA TWW 2012) . Te guidance suggests using formal ranking methods such as the International Union of Conservation Networks (IUCN) Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001, 2010) , Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s taxa ranking system (Millsap et al. 1990) , and the NatureServe conservation status evaluation tool (NatureServe 2012a; Master et al. 2012; Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012) . Benefts of using more uniform methods include consistency of the information and the ability to share data across organizations (Salafsky et al. 2008) . Following recommendations from the 2005 WAP Review Team as well as AFWA-TWW’s best practice guidance, the 2015 WAP Revision Technical Team formed a Ranking Criteria Work Group (Work Group) to review and evaluate ranking metrics and prioritization tools. Te Work Group was comprised of biologists from the NCWRC who were tasked with developing recommendations for a method to identify SGCN and to prioritize conservation eforts on behalf of species. In addition to reviewing the evaluation methods recommended by AFWA-TWW (noted above), the Work Group also considered methods described by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (UNEP-WCMC 2011) , American Fisheries Society (Deacon et al. 1979; Jelks et al. 2008) , Partners In Flight Species Assessment Process (Beissinger et al. 2000) , and an assessment of various categorization systems conducted by de Grammont and Cuaron (2006) and Arponen (2012) . Based on the results of their review and assessment, the Work Group members determined that adopting and modifying selected ranking criteria and scoring metrics described by IUCN, Millsap (et al. 1990) , and NatureServe, combined with the creation of original criteria and metrics to capture knowledge gaps and management concerns, would best meet North Carolina’s WAP goals for identifying SGCN and prioritizing conservation eforts. Te Work Group also adopted the 10-point scoring system as described in Millsap (et al. 1990) because the application of this method is similar to the ranking criteria proposed in this white paper, and a statistical analysis conducted by Millsap (et al. 1990) of their results indicated the metrics and scoring system were robust and selection bias was minimal.
913
2015 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online