3.4 Crayfshes
(5) restricted range. Results from the reassessment indicate that the overall conservation status of crayfshes has changed little since the frst comprehensive review. Specifcally, nearly half of the 363 crayfshes remained categorized as possibly extinct, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable; however, it should be noted that at least 25 taxa were downgraded due to increased research eforts and 27 new crayfsh species were described after the 1996 assessment (Taylor et al. 2007) . Of the described native crayfshes in North Carolina, the conservation status of 24 species remained the same after reassess-
ment, 7 species were downgraded to a lower priority status, 12 species were described after the 1996 assessment, and no species were upgraded to a higher threat category. Specifcally, the 2007 assessment ranked the aforementioned 43 species as follows: 1 (2%) species is listed as endangered; 4 (9%) are threatened; 9 (21%) are vulnerable; 28 (65%) are currently stable; and 1 species was described subsequent to AFS assessments.
Chowanoke Crayfsh (Tyler Black, NCWRC)
A list of crayfsh SGCN is provided in Table 3.10 and the Taxa Team evaluation results can be found in Appendix G. River basin and habitat associations for these species can be found in Appendix H. Conservation recommendations for the associated habitats have been incorporated into the natural community descriptions in Chapter 4. Additional recommendations can be found in the river basin descriptions (Section 4.5). Te following paragraphs provide infor- mation about species identifed by the Taxa Team as SGCN or a priority species for research or management, and for which work has been conducted to implement conservation and management recommendations. 3.4.2 Comparison of 2005 and 2015 Priority Species Te 2015 evaluation identifed 30 crayfshes as conservation concern, knowledge gap, or management concern priorities. Some species are a priority in more than one of the three evaluation categories (see Appendix G). In comparison, the 2005 WAP listed 21 crayfshes as priority species, which may have included concerns for knowledge gaps. However, the 2005 Taxa Team did not identify knowledge gaps or management concerns as separate priorities. Tese changes do not necessarily indicate a change in the concern status for the species; they are more likely a result of diferent evaluation methodologies from the 2005 process or refect an increase in our knowledge base for the species. Table 3.11 provides a comparison of changes since the 2005 WAP was published.
82
2015 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online