| ASSUMPTION / VARIABLE |
IMPACT ON IMPERILED STATUS: BETTER / WORSE |
|
1. Using minimum synoptic count of 3,276 (an undercount) as initial population size
|
Worse |
|
2. Using survival rates based on scar catalog a process which underestimates survival rate
|
Worse |
|
3. Adding catastrophes which are already a factor in existing survival rates
|
Worse |
|
4. Adding catastrophes in 15 of the 16 scenarios
|
Worse |
|
5. Projecting immediate declines in survivorship of .10 and .05 percent
|
Worse |
|
6. Using those immediate survivorship declines in 9 of the 16 scenarios
|
Worse |
|
7. Using PVA model with variables that constrain population growth rate to less than known growth rates
|
Worse |
|
8. Setting a minimum 50% decline in carrying capacity in 12 of the 16 scenarios
|
Worse |
|
9. Setting carrying capacity to decline by 50% in 6 of the 16 scenarios and by 75% in another 6 of the 16 scenarios
|
Worse |
|
10. Adding a new “risk factor” to analysis which allows criteria to be achieved when only 10% or 20% of simulations actually meet the criteria
|
Worse |