Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Process White Paper
Members of the Work Group coordinated with biologists at the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to determine whether any information used in the NatureServe eval- uation tool would be compatible with the proposed ranking criteria. It was determined this information is not uniformly available across all taxa groups or for species that are not tracked for reporting to NatureServe. However, the NCNHP will provide data for those spe- cies which are tracked in their database system. Te NCNHP requested that the metrics be designed in a way that ranking criteria data can augment information used in designating state-level rankings as reported by NatureServe. As a result of these coordination eforts, the Work Group adopted answer scales that utilize the NatureServe evaluation tool for sev- eral metrics that address conservation concerns (NatureServe 2012a). Other coordination eforts include a request to faculty and staf of the North Carolina Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit and staf of the Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center at NC State University (NCSU) for review of the draft ranking criteria metrics. Te request asked for comments on whether statistical analysis would be needed to reduce bias in the evaluation process. Teir recommendations include • Displaying answer scales without the associated scores as a means of reducing reviewer bias for selecting answers based on a preferred score outcome;
• Calculating average scores for each metric that are then totaled within each evaluation category for each species; and
• Using a Bayesian style analysis of the relationship between a threat’s scope and severity.
Members of the Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee (NWAC) were also asked to review and provide comments on the proposed ranking criteria. Responses were limited and com- ments were restricted to minor revisions, which have been incorporated into the metrics.
2015 Prioritization Process Te revised ranking criteria are represented by metrics developed by the Work Group and are described in this white paper report. Te criteria will be used to evaluate all wildlife in the amphibian, bird, crayfsh, freshwater fsh, freshwater mussel, mammal, reptile, and snail taxa groups found in North Carolina in order to identify SGCN and priority species. Te results of this ranking process will be used to prioritize conservation eforts (includ- ing research needs), and identify species of management concern. As with the 2005 SGCN evaluation, the Work Group recommendation calls for all game species (those that are hunted, fshed, or trapped) to be included in the ranking process so species experts and peer reviewers can consider the broad interrelationships between species and their habi- tats (Wells et al. 2010; Tear et al. 2005) . Including game species also allows consideration of how the
914
2015 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online