Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Process White Paper
3. Final ranking scores will be automatically calculated by the PAWS database using the results of the Taxa Team review of the metric responses. Taxa Team members will review ranking scores for all species in their taxa group and will recommend minimum Conservation Concern and Knowledge Gap scores for a species to be designated SGCN. 4. Te Taxa Teams will review ranking scores from each of the three review categories and recommend minimum scores for a species to be considered a priority species. 5. Peer-reviewers will be asked to review the metric responses and recommendations for SGCN and priority species. Peer-reviewers may submit recommendations to modify the ranking evaluations. Recommendations to modify a ranking evaluation must be sup- ported with appropriate citations or references to substantiating research. 6. Taxa Team members will evaluate all recommendations submitted by peer-reviewers to determine the merit of the responses. Each Taxa Team will collaboratively determine whether to incorporate recommended changes and modify a species ranking or to retain the original ranking recommendation. 7. Final ranking recommendations made by the Taxa Teams will be published in the 2015 WAP as a list of SGCN and priority species within each taxa group. Te fnal metric responses and ranking criteria scores will be made available in spreadsheet format for public access through a website download. Te Technical Team and Ranking Criteria Work Group recommends that all species be periodically reevaluated using the ranking criteria. Future modifcations to the met- rics may be required to accommodate new fndings and incorporate best-practice recommendations. Conclusion and Acknowledgments Members of the Technical and Taxa Teams reviewed the ranking process used to iden- tify SGCN and priority species for the 2005 WAP and made a recommendation to revise the process during the next WAP revision cycle. Te 2015 WAP Revision Technical Team formed a Ranking Criteria Work Group to develop recommendations for a new species pri- oritization process. Tis Work Group reviewed several existing ranking processes over the course of nine months and worked collaboratively to develop a draft prioritization process and ranking criteria that considers the status of Conservation Concerns, Knowledge Gaps, and Management Concerns for all species in North Carolina.
Peer-review and technical input was sought from technical and species experts from the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit at NCSU, NWAC, NCNHP, NCWRC, and the 2015 WAP
917
2015 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online