CHAPTER 1I: APPROACH AND METHODS 28
and data presently available to them. The answers were later converted to numerical values that
were consistent with the conservation priority ranks, with one (1) indicating declining; two (2),
stable; and, three (3), increasing populations. Since other attributes of the scoring system indicated
greatest need using higher numerical values, it was necessary to invert these scores to make them
compatible with the scoring of other attributes. Those that were not scored on the survey sheets
were logically given the average score to prevent them from being disproportionately penalized for
lacking information.
3 points - Declining population
2 points - Stable population
1 point - Increasing population
E) Degree of Existing Data Available to Support Designation as a SGCN 0 - 1 point
A species may receive a maximum of one (1) point. Federal and state listed species and candidate
species have been identified as those species at greatest risk of endangerment through a public
process. The rationale for this criterion is to separate those species which have been previously
identified as a conservation concern through other established processes from those species which
are regionally endemic, but appear to have stable or secure populations.
1 point - Species has been listed as federally or state endangered,
threatened or identified as a candidate.F) Summary of Knowledge Level of Species 1- 3 points
Through the survey instrument, species were categorized by estimated knowledge level within the
scientific community. Scientists, who completed approximately three surveys per species, were
asked to specify the degree of knowledge of the scientific community relating to species population
status, distribution and habitat type designation and threats/limiting factors/problems affecting the
species. They were asked to consider the most appropriate level of knowledge (high, medium, low)
of the scientific community for each species for each of the three criteria listed. The answers were
later converted to numerical values that were consistent with the conservation priority ranks, with
one (1) indicating low; two (2), medium; and three (3), high. Since other attributes of the scoring
system indicated greatest need using higher numerical values, it was necessary to invert these scores
to make them compatible with the scoring of other attributes. Those that were not scored on the
survey sheets were logically given the average score to prevent them from being disproportionately
penalized for lacking information.
1 point – High level of knowledge
2 points – Moderate level of knowledge
3 points – Low level of knowledge